- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:43:02 -0800
- To: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
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
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 17:43:53 UTC