W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > October 2009

[Fwd: Betr.: [Minutes] BAD TF teleconference on 7 October, 2009]

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:37:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACCEDF0.7060404@w3.org>
To: BAD TF <public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Betr.: [Minutes] BAD TF teleconference on 7 October, 2009
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:27:19 +0200
From: Wilco Fiers <wfiers@bartimeus.nl>
To: <public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org>, <shadi@w3.org>

Hi Everyone,

As asked I've created an table which has a number of the requested
changes build into them. This can be found at

Personally, I can't say I like any of the design changes:
- By making a very obvious distinction between principles and guidelines
the design is now much more distracting. I think this takes away from
the readability. This was already shown in previous stages of the design
and it's now even more obvious.

- The large Difference of criteria under a guideline make the fraction
solution of displaying results feel like the table is missing things.
The 1/1 followed by 9/9 gives me the impression that maybe WAI should
have added a few more guidelines, ore devided what they wanted a bit

Also I find scanning through the factions a lot more difficult. It's not
so obvious where you would have to go to find problems. This could
possibly be solved by adding extra visual information on where the
guideline isn't passed.

- Fractions on the principles make 'Robust' look like a bit of an
afterthought. I don't think this is what the table should portray.

- Changing from icons to words also makes skimming through the table

There was also another argument I had for using Not applicable as a SC
result. A passed SC will, in the report table (and presumably in other
WCAG 2 reports also) mean that techniques are listed in the evaluation
that explain where and why this technique was applied to come to the

I've tested many websites over the past few years. And I find that
there's a large difference between not having found a video in the
evaluation and thus calling 1.3 & 1.4 (WCAG 1) not applicable as opposed
to stating the checkpoints were passed. A site owner could then assume
the videos on the site are correct and continue making mistakes. Even
though I might not have found it. This distinction is rather important
if next year a colleague finds this page with the video and fails the
checkpoint based on this. The problem presumably doesn't exist for a
single page evaluation. However it's a very real distinction when
evaluating a website based on a set of sample pages.

Hope this helps.


>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> 07-10-09 19:39 >>>
Dear BAD TF,

The minutes from today's teleconference discussion is available:
   - <http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-badtf-minutes>

Next meetings:
   - Wednesday 14 October 17:00-18:00 CET
   - Wednesday 21 October 17:00-18:00 CET


Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
    WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
   W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 19:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:51 UTC