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

RE: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include Validity

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:58:18 +0000
To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org"<public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A4671A5CD@s107ma.bart.local>
Hi Richard,

Good addition, thanks!

Maybe we could go a step further like Detlev proposes and replace replicable by reliable. We had a combination in an earlier draft. At the university of Twente, they teach that replicable is a part of the reliability when measuring. Detlev writes that "'Reliable' is less deterministic and seems a lot more suited. A test can be reliable within tolerances (see R14). To claim Replicability and allow for tolerances at the same time seems disingenuous to me."
We could turn R04 into Reliable. 
Kindest regards,

Eric

________________________________________
Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] namens RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 29 september 2011 12:12
Aan: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include Validity

I am happy with R04 using "Replicable". But the statement needs an extra
"same" just to clarify that point. IE it should read

R04: Replicable
    Different Web accessibility evaluators using the same methods on the
same website(s) should get the same results.

Regards
Richard




Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 10:57:52 GMT

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