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

Re: Questions about Evaluating Web Sites...

From: Jean-Marie D'Amour <jmdamour@videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:49:39 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20020524074558.00c1f4e8@pop.videotron.ca>
To: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, Sylvie Duchateau <sduchate@snv.jussieu.fr>
Hello Chuck,

JAWS is unable to read the del element and the configuration that ask JAWS 
to say atribute changes is inoperant with the del visual apperance.

Jean-Marie D'Amour

A 22:07 2002-05-23, Chuck Letourneau a écrit :
>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
>
>

Jean-Marie D'Amour M.Éd.
Formateur
CAMO pour personnes handicapées
www.camo.qc.ca
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 07:49:45 GMT

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