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

for content review: Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:33:40 -0500
Message-ID: <432B01F4.2070702@w3.org>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

EOWG,

We had a good discussion in today's EOWG teleconference about the "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" document (title still under development). Draft minutes and changelog items are available at:
	http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#item04

Based on that discussion, it seems the current draft is very close on overall content and organization, and the remaining work is mostly at the "wordsmithing" level. Therefore, please complete a content review in the upcoming week and send any content comments to the EOWG list by:
	Monday 26 September

I encourage you to send comments earlier and discuss them on the list.

Relevant links, notes, and questions from this week's agenda are below.

Best regards,
~ Shawn


2. Including Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility
* Requirements and Changelog for "Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users"
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut
* [EARLY ROUGH ROUGH DRAFT] Including Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/users.html
* previous concept draft:
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/users-old.html

Note: This is an early rough draft, that is very rough. Please focus on the overall approach and content. For this review, do not focus on detailed wording and such.

Review & Discussion Questions:
2.1. Overall reactions?

2.2. How does this draft address the issues raised in previous discussions & comments?
See references: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut#refs

2.3. Does this draft put "usability testing" in it's appropriate place? Have we swung too far the other way?

2.4. Are there things from the previous concept draft that are missing that should be put back in?
See list at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut#2005-09-13

2.5. Are there any new issues with this draft?

2.6. How about the section "Include Diverse Users"? Is it the appropriate level of coverage, or should it be cut down significantly?

2.7. Imagine different audiences, e.g.:
- Web developer in small design firm whose knowledge is mostly technical, not accessibility or usability testing
- Web accessibility tester who only knows how to use evaluation tools and a little manual checking, has never involved users
- manager who has been asked to provide money for her staff to involve users with disabilities in accessibility evaluation
- usability professional who knows nothing about accessibility
- and others listed at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/users.html#list
How does this document work for different audiences?

2.8. How does the title work? How is it for translatability? Other thoughts for title?
Received on Friday, 16 September 2005 17:33:43 GMT

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