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
guidelines<grin>).


Thanks, Joe.

John


"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
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Re: Revised statement on testability (was" Definition of human
testability)



> 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,"
which 
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT