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

Re: Preliminary Review section of Evaluating Web Sites

From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:08:59 -0400
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
JB: is the tone of intro paragraph better now?

GJR: excellent...

JB: is the representative sampling of pages ok w/ the entry page added?

GJR: i would slightly expand the "representative sampling" to include:

a) feedback mechanisms;
b) login/user authentification mechanism(s), if any;
c) search facility (both "simple" and "advanced", if present);
d) main/top-level help document for site;

and, most importantly:

e) at least one page which you feel confident will pass the review;
f) at least one page which you are sure will fail the review;

JB: I moved the note about reviewers with disabilities sometimes needing to
pair up (to second step of preliminary review); does that work?

JB: in the sub-list of five "browser tricks," are the instructions about
to do clear and useful?

GJR: yes, but i would add:

X. turn off support for stylesheets, to ensure that the page's "logical"
structure is not dependent upon presentation, and that no information is
being conveyed through style alone;

JB: I added a note about "experienced users of screen readers" in step #3,
with a little bit of caution in different directions, to try to work in
what Carlos was saying since this seems to be a way to fit it in even in
the preliminary review

GJR: rather than

(NOTE: experienced users of screen readers may
       substitute a screen reader for a voice or text browser, but if blind,
may need a sighted partner to compare information available visually;
if sighted, listen to it with eyes closed, then open eyes and confirm
the information is equivalent)

i'd prefer a bit more explanation of (a) how to find out

(NOTE: Experienced users of screen readers may substitute a screen reader
for a voice or text browser, and should take care to note differences when
the same screen reader is used to review the same content with a variety of
browsers. Blind evaluators will need to either carefully document/record
every interaction with the content being tested so that their feedback can
be compared with that of a visual evaluation of the page, or to partner with
a sighted colleague who can compare the information available aurally and/or
tactilely with what is available visually. Sighted evaluators using a
screen-reader or self-voicing browser, should test
each page twice. First, unplug your mouse and turn off your monitor and
attempt to navigate and interact with the page; then, leaving your mouse
unplugged, turn on your monitor, and reload the page. Repeat your
interaction with the page, noting what information is available to your
sense of sight that isn't available to your sense of hearing. Any
interactive components of the page should be easy to locate; interaction
with these components must not be predicated solely upon the presence or
absence of a specific device, such as a mouse.

which also reminds me that another advantage of the WAVE, which should be
in Step 3 is that it enables the deaf evaluator to simulate testing with a

JB: other comments on preliminary review section of this document?

it is shaping up well -- more comments on/suggestions for other sections to

Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds.
                                                -- George Santayana
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
           Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 12:08:05 UTC

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