This audit was conducted as part of the WAI Web Site Redesign Project. It is not intended to be inclusive of all issues on the WAI web site. Its purpose is to give the redesign team a sample of issues needing to be addressed through the redesign project. This is not a recommendation of changes, or an attempt at providing solutions to the issues raised.
This audit was conducted by Michael Lenz on December 31, 2003. It was based on an audit outline provided by Echo Alley.
Is the goal of the site clearly conveyed?
The does not articulate it's purpose. The home page looks to be a collection of links. It assumes a base knowledge. The quote from Tim Berners-Lee does not tell the user anything about the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
Is the relevance to the user clearly conveyed?
No. The site does not use natural human language. It is dependent on a user having a base knowledge that should not be assumed.
Are the basic steps to achieve the goal clearly conveyed?
There are some indications of possible goals of the site. Unfortunately the user is not given context around the content to enable them to determine what the intended goal of the content is.
Can users make revisions to previous inputs easily?
The site is extremely dependent on the browser back button.
Does the site support both information gathering and guidance seeking?
The site is narrowly focused on the expert user and their goals. It does little in the way of helping users that are looking for guidance.
Are instructions and additional resources presented within the context of the users' tasks and goals?
The site does a good job at utilizing links within the content area.
Do page headings help people understand where they are located?
The site does a very good job of labeling and page headings. Unfortunately the user is very frequently linked into the body area of a page via anchor links, which provide no overall context to the user.
Does the user have limited choices, in line with short-term memory?
It is hard to use the pages. With so many in line links the pages can easily become overwhelming. It is quite easy when looking for new content to get in link loop. Additionally the pages make use of very similar content and repeat similar concepts, confusing the user.
Are navigation choices grouped into functional units?
Navigation at a page and site level are grouped consistently.
Is the intent and destination of links obvious?
It is very hard to tell if you have changed a content area or driven deeper into the content you are in.
Does the navigation design clearly communicate the key steps of the site?
The site does not label anchor links as such. This makes determining success very difficult. It is hard to determine how successful the user is.
Does the site allow sequential and non-sequential access to key steps?
Yes. Without an explicit hierarchy this makes the site hard to use at times.
Are navigation elements placed in a consistent location?
Navigation
Is language (for example, in content and navigation) used consistently?
Links at times do not match the term used on the corresponding page.
Does the site follow HTML and GUI conventions?
The site does not follow best practices pertaining to GUI. Site area navigation is oddly placed, anchor links are not identified as such. In some cases subheads have more visual weight than their parents.
Does it make effective use of repeating visual themes to unify the site?
The site lacks visual appeal. It does however feel like one site based on its visual presentation.
Do content pages contain one conceptual unit of content (no more, no less)?
The pages do not group concepts into consumable chunks. They very frequently overload the user with information without giving context.
Is content prioritized according to the users' needs? (Using size, color, and/or screen position.)
The position appears to have no relation to its importance. Though with such a wide user base, it is hard to say if it is narrowly focused or unfocused.
Does the site allow people to drill down for more depth about topics of interest to them?
The site fails in this area. It is very easy for users to find links on a topic, but the site does not tell the user if they are driving deeper or shifting content areas.
Does the site move at a pace appropriate to the material and the target audience?
On one end it is very fast and cryptic, on the other it is appropriate. The site needs to better modify its style based on its target audience. It appears to write the same (technical) no matter who the intended audience is.
Does the site provide a balance of information?
After going through the site map, it appears to have plenty of information. Unfortunately the site does not facilitate the user who is new to the site. It also fails to accelerate the tasks of the expert users.
Does the site target its intended audience directly?
No. The site does not take into account the technical range of its audience. It relies heavily on a knowledge base that may not be present.
Does the site speak the users' language?
No. It speaks WAI language. It is very difficult to determine the differences in content and it does not use natural human language. This is magnified when a novice user visits the site.
Does the site explain unfamiliar concepts in way users will understand?
This is one of the biggest failings of the site. For example if a user goes to the User Agent page, it does not tell the user what a User Agent is. Rather it dives into User Agents and again users terms foreign to the general populous.
Does the site feature up-to-date information available on the topic?
The site does a good job at keeping the web site current. Though it would benefit the user to be able to see what areas of a site area have been updated recently.
Does the site tell users when and how often content is updated?
The accurate time stamp and who to contact for more information is of great value.
Does the design work to prevent errors from occurring?
The visual design does little to help facilitate the users' interaction.
Do error messages constructively suggest a solution to the problem?
Generally the error prevention is out of date. The 404 page does not recognize a local directory parent.