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

Questions about Evaluating Web Sites...

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:07:34 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020523202722.00b141c0@host.igs.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
You can view the copy of the "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" draft 
that I captured for editing at: http://www.starlingweb.com/wai/eval1.htm
In some places I have used the del element of HTML to show replaced text. 
If this is annoying (or inaccessible) I will remove it. I have not 
highlighted new text.

I have started working from the change log entries 
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/changelog.html] for the eval doc.  As 
I expected, the editing raises further questions.

1. For instance, I made the changes for the edit suggested by this entry in 
the change log:
         3.2.2 more diversity in tool examples [20011022]
         [20020410] remove the "as above" in comprehensive,  and repeat it 
explicitly in comprehensive review (re-cite the external ref list);

I think the change (i.e. repeating the list) does improve 
comprehension.  However, similar constructs (i.e. references to lists in 
Preliminary Review) appear in 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.3.1.  Question: if we 
explicitly repeat the list of tools/steps for 3.2.2, shouldn't we repeat 
them for these points as well?

2. Regarding 2.2.3, the change log states

         clarify purpose of changing the font size (2.2.3) [20011030]
         [20020410] (1) [done/cl/20020523:clarify _will_ the font size 
change on the screen accordingly; and is the page still usable.

I interpreted the point in this way: "use browser controls to vary 
font-size: verify that the font size changes on the screen accordingly; and 
that the page is still usable at larger font sizes."  Comments?


3. Regarding 2.2.5:

         questioning what printing page accomplishes (2.2.5) [20011030]
         [20020412] it is useful for some people, so we will leave this in, 
however it's not required and you don't have to use it.

My concern isn't with the change log comment (which I agree with). The 
point currently reads "change the display color to black and white (or 
print out page on black and white printer) and observe whether color 
contrast is adequate."
Question: Isn't black and white (i.e. 2-color) display or printing 
unrealistic or extreme?  Would this be better as "change the display color 
to gray-scale (or print out page on a gray-scale printer) and observe 
whether color contrast is adequate." ?

4. Regarding 2.2.6 - I made the change suggested in the change log:

         clarify without the mouse (2.2.6) [20011030]
         [20020412] agreed, change to without using the mouse

I think this point has further problems, even after the suggested 
change.  I think the following wording would improve it: "without using the 
mouse tab through the links and form controls on a page, making sure that 
you can access all links and form controls, and that the links clearly 
indicate what they lead to and form control labels clearly identify their 
purpose."  Actually, I think the latter part of this point should be a 
separate bullet... the availability of links and controls is a separate 
issue from link and label clarity.

Regards,
Chuck Letourneau
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 22:06:37 GMT

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