W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > September 2011

RE: additional requirements

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:52:41 +0000
To: "kvotis@iti.gr" <kvotis@iti.gr>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A46718E65@s107ma.bart.local>
Hi Kostas,

EARL could be one of the ways to report in the Methodology (probably the preferred way) but I could imagine less technical reports by persons doing an evaluation. In that case we would also want the report to address specific information supporting the validity requirement. 
Kindest regards,

Eric 


________________________________________
Van: kvotis@iti.gr [kvotis@iti.gr]
Verzonden: donderdag 22 september 2011 8:47
Aan: Velleman, Eric
CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: additional requirements

Dear Eric,

the "support validity" requirement doesn;t support it with the usage of EARL?

regards

kostas




> 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 11:55:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT