- From: Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:53:53 +0200
- To: kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com
- CC: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hello, Kathy and all, From a "low vision" point of view, I prefer the second one (it has better contrast). Howver, I like the first one since it conveys better the accessibility monitoring as a continuous work. However, since the reading sequence is from left to right, I tend to read first the "step 5" and then the "step 1". Maybe the graphic could have the "step 1" on the top, and then continue clockwise to the next steps. I also agree that some steps can be simultaneous and arrows (or steps) should overlap a bit (I have an idea on how to represent that, I will try to draw it by hand later). In addition, I thing that the arrow from "step 5" doesn't necessarily go to the first step, but to the third. We usually don't change the scope between audits, nor have to explore again a website that we already know, so we go directly to the sampling process (and in some cases even this step is skipped). My 2 cents ;) Regards, Ramón. Kathy wrote: > Sorry about the subject line, I should have changed it. I have done so > now so this thread does not get mixed up. I appreciate you pointing > that out. > > I like your idea but I was wondering if you could outline a bit more > about what level of detail you think would be best. If you can outline > it in text or bullets, I can come up with a graphic. I do think we > need to be careful about how much text we have in the image so we may > want to consider having some of the text on the page and then bring in > some graphical elements.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 11:56:31 UTC