- From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:27:47 +0200
- To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
- Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Eric, all, I agree with both. Both are important for the transparance of a methodology. I propose to add "(Conformance Level)" to Rx Support validity to make clear that not "private" interpretations of Conformance is meant. Depending on the Methodology we develop later I propose to add "including the documentation of preliminary tests" to Rx Systematic. (if there will be tests like this) Best Kerstin Am 21.09.2011 um 23:18 schrieb "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>: > Hi all, > > We could also consider: > > * Systematic > The Methodology requires a controlled process and documentation in such a way that the evaluation can be checked later. > > * Support validity > Evaluation method results are documented in a manner that it is later possible to see if what has been measured is valid to support a certain claim to conformance > > Kindest regards, > > Eric > > > ========================= > Eric Velleman > Technisch directeur > Stichting Accessibility > Universiteit Twente > > Oudenoord 325, > 3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands); > Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270 > www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu / > www.game-accessibility.com/ www.eaccessplus.eu > > Lees onze disclaimer: www.accessibility.nl/algemeen/disclaimer > Accessibility is Member van het W3C > ========================= >
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 06:28:26 UTC