Re: Preliminary Review section of Evaluating Web Sites

Judy/All,

Some comments from down under on (
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/rev.html#prelim).

1. Representative sampling - suggest we also include the "contact us" or
"feedback" page as this where you often go if you can't find what you want.
What about suggesting a sample form if the site contains any?

2. GUI

2.1 images off - "turn off images and consider whether the content now
available is equivalent to that available with images turned on" or similar
(ie don't use "see"). Also, I agree with Lila about providing instructions
for doing this. Harvey - are you suggesting that we ask MS, NS, etc to
provide these?

2.2, 2.3, 2.4 - ditto wrt to instructions

WRT Jean-Marie's comment about resolution - this is a good one, but maybe
more appropriate for the the Eval section? Many pages are now designed for
a minimum of 800 x 600 and force a 640 x 480 user to scroll horizontaly - a
real turn-off.

3. voice/text browser - ".... and answer the following questions" WRT
monitor off question, maybe we should suggest they compare what they first
'saw' with what they 'hear' (and have the monitor off to prevent bias). I
must admit it can be easy to 'hear' what you expect to hear if you can
still see the screen - it is definitely a learned artform.

4. Can I suggest including the Dreamweaver accessibility extensions here -
this is a very common authoring tool and if we want to make this
Preliminary Review as easy as possible for folks, then we should tell them
about the tools that fit within their current tool-set. (eg. available from
http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/)



Cheers,  Andrew


_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Manager, Internet Product Development
Vision Australia Foundation
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210
Mobile 0438 755 565
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/

Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 18:33:00 UTC