W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Results of evaluation

From: Chetz Colwell <c.g.colwell@herts.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:26:35 +0000
Message-Id: <v01540b04b3132012b57e@[212.1.136.229]>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
My comments = CC::, Charles McCathieNevile's = CMN::

CMN::
>While the results have produced many valuable observations, I am inclined
>to temper my acceptance of the comments about the organisation and layout
>of the document with the knowledge that only about one hour was spent
>reading it. In my view this is too brief a reading for most people.

CC::
The participants were given as much time as they wanted to read the
Guidelines and were paid accordingly: there was no limit set, except by the
participants' own schedules, which of course occurs in 'real life'.  They
spent 2 hours performing the task, some of which was also spent re-reading.
It could be that they spent so little time reading because they found the
documents difficult to navigate.

I think this raises the issue of the intended, or expected, audience of the
Guidelines.  There are authors who are able to commit a reasonable amount
of time to learning about accessibility, and therefore will read the entire
Guidelines document.  But I think this is typical of only one group who are
likely to want to use the guidelines.  Others will not be able to spend as
much time, and they are not currently supported in using the document
without reading it all.  Perhaps this type of author is the intended
audience of the E&O group's 'quicktips' card, rather than the Guidelines?

CMN::
>(Why only one person from humanities? We're not really techno-illiterates
>and Luddites...)

(CC:: The participants were self-selecting: I wouldn't want to exclude
anyone on the basis of their academic discipline!)

Regards,

Chetz
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 1999 05:25:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT