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 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:18 UTC