W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:03:37 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE322@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Correction:
 
I wrote:
<blockquote>
The literature seems to support the 80 per cent figure.  In fact,
inter-rater reliability (percentage of agreement among multiple people
rating the same
items) is considered "adequate," but 85% is considered better. I think
we're safe in using the 80 percent figure. If we go lower than that it
will be difficult
to claim reliability.

</blockquote>
 
Sorry, that should have been:
<corrected>
The literature seems to support the 80 per cent figure.  In fact,
inter-rater reliability (percentage of agreement among multiple people
rating the same
items) of 80% is considered "adequate," but 85% is considered better. I
think we're safe in using the 80 percent figure. If we go lower than
that it will be difficult
to claim reliability.

</corrected>
 
 

"Good design is accessible design." 
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/
<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 John M Slatin
	Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:54 pm
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
	
	
	On the Techniques call today we discussed the proposed
definition of the term "reliably human testable":
	 
	<proposed>
	[Definition: Reliably Human Testable: The technique can be
tested by human inspection and it is believed that at least 80% of
knowledgeable human evaluators
	would agree on the conclusion. Tests done by people who
understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same
content for the same success
	criteria. The use of probabilistic machine algorithms may
facilitate the human testing process but this does not make it machine
testable.]
	
	</proposed>
	 
	Someone on the call asked whether the 80 percent figure
represented an arbitrary number.  I took an action item to find out and
report back.  With terrific help from David Macdonald, I've got an
answer:
	 
	The literature seems to support the 80 per cent figure.  In
fact, inter-rater reliability (percentage of agreement among multiple
people rating the same items) is considered "adequate," but 85% is
considered better. I think we're safe in using the 80 percent figure. If
we go lower than that it will be difficult to claim reliability.
	 
	John
	 
	
	"Good design is accessible design." 
	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/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 
	

	 

	 
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 19:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC