testing, testing, 1 2 3.

At 04:35 PM 2/28/01 -0500, Jutta Treviranus wrote:
>What are peoples thoughts?

I don't think "Recruiting 8 average users of the tool who know little if 
anything about access..." is an essential ingredient. We aren't trying for 
some kind of "objectivity" but rather about the efficacy of the tools. OTOH 
"...recruiting authors with disabilities and asking them to create a test 
document and assessing the accessibility..." is imperative.

"...can't be used to make a definitive conformance statement" is less 
important IMO than somehow evoking the possibility of a tool being usable 
by and for PWD. As Jim Allan said, one can do this stuff with (un-named) 
HTML wysywyg editors - or a text editor for that matter. For someone like 
him to be left off the panel because he knows too much doesn't make much 
sense to me.

Gregory makes Web sites, Kelly Ford isn't known for that but they should be 
able to use a tool, as should people with non-visual "barriers" put up by 
some past tools. For one thing, we should get candidates from places like 
Doug Wakefield and Toronto clients?


--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE