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

Evaluation section of Evaluating Web Sites

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:14:00 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

I updated the "Evaluation" section of Evaluating Web Sites 
according to today's change requests
even though we did not get through that whole section in our discussion.

Please reply on list to the following questions AND/OR raise other comments:

- #1. in "identify scope" I added a note about disclosing any exclusions in
review scope; is ok?

- #2. I added a note about option of running validation tools over whole
site, depending on scope & goals; is ok?

- #2.2. Right now, step 2.2 includes the phrase: "Use at least two
accessibility checkers, on page selection, and run at least one tool across
entire Web site." Is the part about running at least one tool across the
entire Web site realistic, considering that some sites are hundreds of
thousands of pages; the run could take days; and the output from such a run
would be unreadable by any human(s) anyway? Should this instead say:
"OPTIONAL: Run at least one tool across entire Web site."

- #2. NOTE that several places in the "Evaluation" section, starting here,
the evaluation protocol references a section in the preliminary review
protocol up above. To me this seems efficient & concise; is this clear
enough when reading it?

- #3. Following the phrase "also examine page with scripts, style sheets,
and applets not loaded," what is the behavior that we should tell people to

- #3.2 I moved the position of the Denmark/JAWS note. But should this be
additive, or alternative? Here it is listed as additive, e.g., also do
this. If it were alternative, what would it be instead of?

- #4. Is the section on people with disabilities testing sites clear &

- ##. Should we add a section with suggestions on how to interpret or
summarize the evaluation results? Seems that that could seem superfluous,
but on the other hand, I can imagine some review groups that are new at
this identifying many problems throughout the evaluation process but then
producing a summary that might essentially take the average conformance
level, or generalize past much of the problematic detail. Any thoughts?

- other comments on evaluation section of this document? 


- Judy
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 Friday, 27 July 2001 17:16:20 UTC

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