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

Re: Evaluation section of Evaluating Web Sites

From: Jean-Marie D'Amour <jmdamour@videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:56:49 -0400
Message-ID: <001801c116ef$7cc40320$3543c818@ca.mshome.net>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hello all,

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


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

Why "including Bobby". I suggest to put this Note at the end of the section
at the same level of 1,2,3. This note is applicable of all the tools mention
it this section.

> - #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
> 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
> would be unreadable by any human(s) anyway? Should this instead say:
> "OPTIONAL: Run at least one tool across entire Web site."

I vot for OPTIONAL

> - #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
> observe?

The page is supposed to be readable without style sheets.
Sscripts and applets not loaded,  for évaluation of the NOSCRIPT description
and alt text description for APPLETS. The content must be equivalent.

> - #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?

It's the same situation in Quebec whit JAWS, but I think it's better
"additive". It's not replace voice or text browser.

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


> - ##. 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?

If you can keep it short and simple, I think it's a good idea to propose
headings for a typical summary.

> - other comments on evaluation section of this document?


> Thanks,
> - 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 18:57:11 UTC

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