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

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

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:52:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACCF165.3030801@w3.org>
To: Wilco Fiers <wfiers@bartimeus.nl>
CC: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Hi Wilco,

Thanks for addressing your action items quickly. Some thoughts below:

Wilco Fiers wrote:
> 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
> http://fiers.name/badtf/report/report.htm
> 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.

When the table is sufficiently expanded it is easier to recognize the 
principles as separators but otherwise I agree with you, the style is 
not really optimal.

Does anyone have other suggestions for highlighting the principles?

> - 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
> better.

Interesting point.

> 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.

Yes, it needs more cognitive effort, unless you know what you are 
looking for.

Unless anyone objects, I'd like to get EOWG perspective on these two 
points above.

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

I thought we agreed that principles should have no result.

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

You had a nice border and background for pass/fail. Why did you remove them?

> 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
> conclusion.
> 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.

Yes, good point. I've already asked EOWG and WCAG WG for more input.

> Hope this helps.

Yes, helps a lot. But I think we need to continue playing around a 
little more with making the levels more distinct.


>>>> 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
>   *or*
>   - Wednesday 21 October 17:00-18:00 CET
> Regards,
>    Shadi

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 19:52:19 UTC

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