- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:07:10 +0200
- To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
- CC: 'Eval TF' <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Thank you Kerstin. As agreed, there will be several opportunities to further discuss different aspects of increasing the reliability and quality of the methodology. I look forward to discussing specific suggestions for improving particular sections of the document. Best, Shadi On 23.3.2012 10:58, Kerstin Probiesch wrote: > Hi Shadi, all, > > I don't want to stand in the way and see the need the need for external > feedback, more discussion on several points and a sense of achievement for > reaching the first milestone of our work. > > I still have reservations concerning some points: missing goodness criteria, > techniques chapter - a section which is still unclear for me and optional > score which is against my conviction as long as we don't speak about > comparing the websites of X companies and make a ranking on how much SCs are > met. > > Anyway. It is a First Public Working Draft (FPWD and I'm now looking forward > for the feedback from the public and further discussions. > > Best > > Kerstin > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. März 2012 04:48 >> An: Eval TF >> Betreff: proceeding with publication >> >> Dear Eval TF, >> >> As discussed on the previous teleconference call, we agreed to proceed >> with publishing the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of our "Website >> Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0". >> >> The latest draft, diff-marked version, and disposition of comments are: >> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120320> >> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120320-diff> >> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments> >> >> There has been one addition to the "Status of the Document" section, it >> now contains a bullet asking for feedback on: >> - "Meeting the set _Requirements_, in particular on meeting the >> _requirement for increasing inter-rater reliability_;" >> >> This change was to (1) refer readers to our requirements documents and >> (2) to encourage feedback on improving the reliability of the document. >> >> There are also several other points that we will come back to for more >> discussion, especially as we expand the currently empty sections. >> >> Congratulations on all of your hard work in achieving this milestone! >> >> Best, >> Shadi >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ >> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office >> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) >> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) > > > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 12:07:38 UTC