W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > January 2012

RE: metadata for evaluation methodology?

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:58:37 -0500
To: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C493090129F4A1@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
For example, date of evaluation, who is evaluating, what they're evaluating (scope of evaluation, number of pages, etc.)), sampling method used, scoring method/error analysis used, version of WCAG2.0 used in evaluation, additional resources/data pertinent to evaluation, etc.) - that kind of thing - a little bit like:
for tests, but in our case for evaluations.  Some of the stuff in the methodology document, but in metadata form - coming to agreement on what should be in a good evaluation report besides the obvious (conformance to WCAG2.0) -
sorry I wasn't clear..

Best, Tim

From: Michael S Elledge [mailto:elledge@msu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:03 PM
To: Boland Jr, Frederick E.
Cc: Eval TF
Subject: Re: metadata for evaluation methodology?

Hi Tim--

Can you expand a bit on this? I don't think I understand. It seems to me that the required components of an evaluation would be the WCAG 2.0 success criteria, but I'll bet that isn't what you meant.


On 1/11/2012 8:38 AM, Boland Jr, Frederick E. wrote:
I'm worried that we don't seem to be compiling anywhere a list of (required/optional) (terms/components) for an evaluation.  We're having a lot of good discussion and document development, but I couldn't find captured from that discussion anywhere some preliminary metadata for evaluations, like was done for Test Metadata for old W3C Quality Assurance Working Group and for old test samples development task force.  Maybe it's too early yet, but at least we should be brainstorming about such a list, at least for the template appendix?

Just a thought..
Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

PS - if such a list exists, then my apologies..
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:59:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:19 UTC