W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Revised statement on testability (was" Definition of human testability)

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:26:41 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183B0C9@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

It turned out that many members of the working group were not familiar
with the term "inter-rater reliability," so we tried to find a
paraphrase.   But maybe we could solve the problem by using the
"inter-rater reliability" and linking it to a definition, as we do with
other specialized language (doing so would even be consistent with our

Thanks, Joe.


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: Revised statement on testability (was" Definition of human

> Are you being deliberately vague about what "usually" and "very 
> similar" mean? For an explanation of what the working group believes 
> has been achieved this is probably sufficient

I believe the term you're looking for is "inter-rater reliability,"
is reasonably well known in subjective testing. It's not necessarily a 
problem or anything.


    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 13:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:31 UTC