- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:29:14 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > ah. I am not suggesting EARL have confidence levels at all. I am suggesting > EARL have qualitative statements about a failure or pass - such as "meets > requirements", "exceeds requirements", "fails solely due to the fact that it > fails some other requirement", "fails in some cases", "fails in all cases". That would be an interesting idea, which wouldn't require any of our various axes. I worry that we'd always be adding new types though (one thing I like about Pass/Fail/Can't Tell is that the possibilities are very limited). Do you have a formal proposal? > If you want to map confidence (trust) ratings, you should do so directly > between trust vocabularies assigned to the different testers. Sounds reasonable to me. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 09:29:16 UTC