- From: Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\) <r.scano@webprofession.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:23:30 +0100
- To: "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Always in italian law, in the old version (2005) based on WCAG 1.0 we put in the methodology to evalutate, in case of web sites: - home page - all links reachable from home page - all the page templates with interactions (modules, etc.) - a number of 5% of different page templates (referring 5% to the number of the total analyzed) --- Roberto Scano International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild http://www.iwanet.org -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] Inviato: domenica 27 gennaio 2013 01:08 A: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org Oggetto: Do we need a definition of random? Dear all, Things we may want to discuss as input for the next editor draft from reactions in the survey 7 [1]: 2. ..otherwise we must define "random" Frederick was so kind to include a few definitions into the survey but I am not sure if we really have to include a definition or explanation of 'random'. There are many ways to select a random sample and I am not sure if we want to put one or more of them into the methodology as it would seem we have a preference. Part of a possible resolution: No definition or explanation, but we add to the reporting section: "describe how you selected the random sample." Let me know what you think. Kindest regards, Eric [1] - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130122#step3e>
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 07:23:59 UTC