Re: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include Validity

Hi Eric,

I personally prefer the more "deterministic" replicable as it more clearly 
defines our key objective ( to get something that produces the same results 
from different people). However I can live with "Reliable" if everyone 
agrees, as you say, it includes being replicable.

Richard

-----Original Message----- 
From: Velleman, Eric
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:58 AM
To: RichardWarren ; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: RE: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include Validity

Hi Richard,

Good addition, thanks!

Maybe we could go a step further like Detlev proposes and replace replicable 
by reliable. We had a combination in an earlier draft. At the university of 
Twente, they teach that replicable is a part of the reliability when 
measuring. Detlev writes that "'Reliable' is less deterministic and seems a 
lot more suited. A test can be reliable within tolerances (see R14). To 
claim Replicability and allow for tolerances at the same time seems 
disingenuous to me."
We could turn R04 into Reliable.
Kindest regards,

Eric

________________________________________
Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] 
namens RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 29 september 2011 12:12
Aan: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: Comment on Requirements RO3, R04, proposal to include 
Validity

I am happy with R04 using "Replicable". But the statement needs an extra
"same" just to clarify that point. IE it should read

R04: Replicable
    Different Web accessibility evaluators using the same methods on the
same website(s) should get the same results.

Regards
Richard

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 11:50:29 UTC