Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

Hi ANdrew

PS ... are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about that when
experts are testing a web site for accessibility there should be a high
level of confidence that most experts would agree.

It sounds like you are talking about when we gather together to write the
standards... that is a completely separate kettle of fish... and yes I
totally agree we go for consensus, not high inter reliability.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:08 AM
>
> David: I think the concept of high inter reliability of experts is as good
> as we can get.
>
>
>
> AWK: I think that the "General agreement, characterized by the absence of
> sustained opposition to substantial issues” actually matches the way that
> the group operated in practice, and continues to do so.  What we are really
> doing is following the WCAG and W3C process (see
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy), and our goal is unanimity, or
> an absence of objections.  Whether this means that everyone actively agrees
> or if most people agree and the rest can live with it doesn’t really
> matter.
>
>
>
> I’m concerned about the “8 of 10” since it starts to feel like voting and
> that hasn’t been the way that we have operated historically.
>
>
>
> I think you’re conflating (1) how the working group reaches consensus,
> which as you describe, and (2) the standard of inter-rater reliability that
> the working group considers success criteria need to have in order to be
> included. The latter has nothing to do with voting – see my formulation of
> it earlier in this thread.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>