W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > January 2013

R: Do we need a definition of random?

From: Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\) <r.scano@webprofession.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:23:30 +0100
To: "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004a01cdfc5f$355a1080$a00e3180$@webprofession.com>
Always in italian law, in the old version (2005) based on WCAG 1.0 we put in
the methodology to evalutate, in case of web sites:
- home page
- all links reachable from home page
- all the page templates with interactions (modules, etc.)
- a number of 5% of different page templates (referring 5% to the number of
the total analyzed)

Roberto Scano
International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] 
Inviato: domenica 27 gennaio 2013 01:08
A: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Oggetto: Do we need a definition of random?

Dear all,

Things we may want to discuss as input for the next editor draft from
reactions in the survey 7 [1]:

2.  ..otherwise we must define "random"
Frederick was so kind to include a few definitions into the survey but I am
not sure if we really have to include a definition or explanation of
'random'. There are many ways to select a random sample and I am not sure if
we want to put one or more of them into the methodology as it would seem we
have a preference.

Part of a possible resolution: No definition or explanation, but we add to
the reporting section: "describe how you selected the random sample."

Let me know what you think.
Kindest regards,


[1] - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130122#step3e>
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 07:23:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:23 UTC