- From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:21:52 +0200
- To: "'RichardWarren'" <richard.warren@userite.com>, "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi all, I also still prefer "reliable" (I would be more happy with reliable and replicable). Without Reliability a test will never be replicable, so Reliability is a prerequisite. For the discussion on "same results" and "similar results": I propose not to change "same" in "similar", because we will define what "same" means (permissible deviation). Best Kerstin > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-evaltf- > request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von RichardWarren > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2011 13:50 > An: Velleman, Eric; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > Betreff: 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 12:22:19 UTC