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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:21:52 +0200
To: "'RichardWarren'" <richard.warren@userite.com>, "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4e8462d5.cd2adf0a.502a.3759@mx.google.com>
Hi all,

I also still prefer "reliable" (I would be more happy with reliable and
replicable). Without Reliability a test will never be replicable, so
Reliability is a prerequisite.

For the discussion on "same results" and "similar results": I propose not to
change "same" in "similar", because we will define what "same" means
(permissible deviation).

Best

Kerstin



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-evaltf-
> request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von RichardWarren
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2011 13:50
> An: Velleman, Eric; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include
> Validity
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I personally prefer the more "deterministic" replicable as it more
> clearly
> defines our key objective ( to get something that produces the same
> results
> from different people). However I can live with "Reliable" if everyone
> agrees, as you say, it includes being replicable.
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Velleman, Eric
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:58 AM
> To: RichardWarren ; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include
> Validity
> 
> 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 12:22:19 GMT

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