W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Some remarks on the 'eval' document

From: Andrew Arch <amja@optushome.com.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:34:43 +1000
Message-ID: <00ca01c1dfc2$ee19c400$7ad531d2@vic.optushome.com.au>
To: "Henk Snetselaar" <H.Snetselaar@bartimeus.nl>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

"Henk Snetselaar" <H.Snetselaar@bartimeus.nl> wrote:
>
> 1. One other try to explain what I meant with inspecting the entire web
site or a page selection. I think it is obvious that the whole web site
should be accessible and especially when talking about 'Conformance
Evaluation' in principle the inspection scope should be the entire web site.
My suggestion would be to suppose that the conformance evaluation concerns
the entire web site, but that there are reason to make a page selection e.g.
when the web site is very large, having a lot redundancy, and other reasons
there might be......
> You can put this as a special case or as a footnote.
> At the least we may not give the idea that a conformance evaluation can be
done with inspecting just a few pages.

AA: Henk, While I agree in principal, most of the websites we are asked to
evaluate and make recommendations for would not engage us if we had to cover
the entire site for manual evaluation checkpoints or user testing - hence my
suggested wording at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2002AprJun/0009.html

>
> 2. In section 2.3 is the suggestion to "use a voice browser (such as HPR)
OR a text browser  (such as Lynx) and examine the Web site ......"
> We use both suggested products in some cases to see what the output is,
but the browsers itself are very different. HPR is a browser that deals very
well with a lot of the used scripts on the internet and with frames, etc.
The Lynx text browser on the other hand is a basic web browser that does not
deal with scripts that way.

AA: WRT HPR - we use HPR for initial testing, but use JAWS for user testing.
They behave differently, but both handle frames, scripts, tables and other
features relatively well these days.

> - At the least the OR between the two supposes that it gives the same
information about the accessibility of your web site.
> - Second, does anybody know how important it still is to judges a web site
by looking to the output of the Lynx browser as the case may be, does
anybody know how many people do still use the Lynx browser to access the
internet?

AA: Has anyone got any information about who uses LYNX? Do some people with
disabilities use it, or is it primarily microsoft-phobes?

> To inspect a web site without the knowledge of HTML can also be done with
the 'Webformator' from Audiodata. This is a free product that works with IE
and gives in a separate window the textual information that also a
screenreader might reveal from a web site.
AA: Looks interesting (see http://www.webformator.com/), but will you know
what to fix? Are you recommending this for preliminary reviews to give a
flavour to "amatures"?

> 3. I work already many years with blind people, but never have I tried to
imagine what they experience on the web by closing my eyes to know what a
blind person may read on the web. (see 2.3) I don't think that this
suggestion, somebody without blindness knowledge, will help to understand
the accessibility status of a web site.

AA: Section 2.3 is talking about a 'Preliminary Review' - the use of HPR is
recommended as a speaking browser that relative novices will be able to
operate and wthat will give them some "flavour" of what problems someone use
a screen-reader to access the web might experience. This probably needs to
be expanded in section 3.4 usability evaluation - should we commend testing
by a JAWS/WindowEyes user?

Cheers,  Andrew
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 08:34:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:33 GMT