W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility

From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:12:28 +1000
To: jbrewer@w3.org
Cc: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2FEF3033.0676D99A-ONCA256A95.000BC646@domino.bigpond.com>

Judy, Your suggestion is even better.  Andrew

                    Judy Brewer                                                             
                    <jbrewer@w3.org        To:     "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>    
                    >                      cc:     "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>               
                    Sent by:               Subject:     Re: Evaluating Web Sites for        
                    w3c-wai-eo-requ        Accessibility                                    
                    26/07/01 08:17                                                          


I'm wondering, though, whether that wouldn't just leave people more likely
to pick the first one ("well we'll just use the preliminary review
approach, since comprehensive evaluation looks excessive, like another
animal entirely").

I'm tempted to call the first one "preliminary review" and the second one
simply "evaluation" -- in other words, the second one is the only approach
that properly evaluates a site.

- Judy

At 12:36 AM 7/21/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>WRT Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
>What about
>2. Preliminary Review (as discussed)
>3. Comprehensive Evaluation
>to differentiate the two approaches even more.
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 22:15:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC