- From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:00:12 +0000
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:00:42 UTC
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:50 AM Great, thanks for the clarification. To clarify my point, I don’t believe that saying “most experts” is fine. The term used during the development of WCAG 2.0 was “high inter-rater reliability”. I don’t recall our discussion of exactly what the requirements were, but my general recollection is that it entailed likely agreement by most reasonably informed evaluators (not the same as agreement by most “experts”, which, to my mind, is a lower standard that is easier to meet). ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:00:42 UTC