W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: EOWG: Review this week: Evaluating with Users

From: Pasquale Popolizio <pasquale@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:12:46 +0200
Message-Id: <64342049-9D38-496F-82A8-98DE7058882D@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
Cc: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Hi Shawn, hi all.

Some thoughts.
I think it's important to focus on "encouraging" and "benefits -  
awareness".

Maybe it's possible to move
"- usability testing not a requirement to ensure comply with WCAG.  
and: {while usability testing helps assess how usable accessibility  
solutions are by people with disabilities, it does not evaluate  
conformance to [WCAG].}
- this resource highlights some main points. other (non-WAI)  
resources available with more details on recruiting people with  
disabilities, conducting usability testing, .."
from "Introduction" to the last paragraph signed now with "?"

I agreee with you about keep it short.

I agree also with Alan that it might be useful to reference the  
document on "How people with disabilities use the web".

About title, suggestions:
"Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Help".
"Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Assistance".
"Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Support".

I tried to translate title into Italian and it seems more  
comprehensible with "help", "assistance" or "support".


Regards
ciao

Pasquale








Il giorno 30/ago/05, alle ore 18:40, Shawn Henry ha scritto:

>
> EOWG,
>
> Please review the following this week and prepare do discuss them  
> at the 2 September teleconference:
> 1. Requirements and Changelog for "Evaluating Web Accessibility  
> with Users"
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut
> 2. [EARLY CONCEPT DRAFT] Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users:
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/users.html
>
> Review Notes:
> * it is an "early concept draft" - meaning it is just a rough  
> outline, unformatted, with incomplete sentences, etc. * to get a  
> quick overview, you can skim the words in bold (<strong> in HTML)
> * stuff in curly brackets are quotes from another resource to give  
> an idea of what we might say
> * the content of each point is not representative of the amount we  
> would be covering it - some points that would have a couple  
> sentences have no notes yet, and others where we would only have  
> one sentence already have more information than we would use
>
> Review & Discussion Questions:
> 1. Overall reaction?
> 2. Does this include the points we want to cover? Is anything missing?
> 3. Are there things we can cut out of this (in order to make the  
> document shorter)?
> 4. Are we meeting the needs of the identified audiences? (with in  
> reason, wanting to keep it short!) (Primary audience: Web  
> developers (designers, content authors, etc.) who want to comply  
> with Web accessibility standards; Secondary audiences: decision  
> makers, professional evaluators, and accessibility researchers;  
> Also: usability professionals)
> 5. What things need to be explained or defined? That is, what do we  
> think most readers won't know and can't figure out easily?
> 6. How does this organization work? Other thoughts for organization?
> 7. How does the title work? How is it for translatability? Other  
> thoughts for title?
>
> Looking forward to discussion!
>
> Best regards,
> ~ Shawn
>
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:12:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:38 GMT