- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:22:26 -0500 (EST)
- To: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- cc: John Foliot - bytown internet <foliot@bytowninternet.com>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Interesting also to note the similarities with the document being worked on by the WAI Education and Outreach Group: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/ cheers chaals On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, David Poehlman wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Foliot - bytown internet" <foliot@bytowninternet.com> >To: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:21 AM >Subject: RE: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing federal >website > > > >For what it's worth, the Canadian Federal Government offers the >following >testing/verification steps for GoC web sites: > >* Use an automated accessibility tool and browser validation tool. >Please >note that software tools do not address all accessibility issues, such >as >the meaningfulness of link text, the applicability of a text equivalent, >etc. >* Validate syntax (e.g., HTML, XML, etc.). >* Validate style sheets (e.g., CSS). >* Use a text-only browser or emulator. >* Use multiple graphic browsers, with: >- sounds and graphics loaded, >- graphics not loaded, >- sounds not loaded, >- no mouse, >- frames, scripts, style sheets, and applets not loaded. >* Use several browsers, old and new. >* Use a self-voicing browser, a screen reader, magnification software, a >small display, etc. >* Use spell and grammar checkers. A person reading a page with a speech >synthesizer may not be able to decipher the synthesizer's best guess for >a >word with a spelling error. Eliminating grammar problems increases >comprehension. >* Review the document for clarity and simplicity. Readability >statistics, >such as those generated by some word processors may be useful indicators >of >clarity and simplicity. Better still, ask an experienced (human) editor >to >review written content for clarity. Editors can also improve the >usability >of documents by identifying potentially sensitive cultural issues that >might >arise due to language or icon usage. >* Invite people with disabilities to review documents. Expert and novice >users with disabilities will provide valuable feedback about >accessibility >or usability problems and their severity. > >(Source: http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-upe/6/tools-outils2a_e.asp) > >Interesting to note is that this list *is* vendor neutral. While Bob's >points are certainly with merit, I would suggest that if the page "makes >sense" in the text only browser (as recommended above) that most if not >all >screen reading technologies will be able to access the page content. > >JF > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On >> Behalf Of Nissen, Dan E >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:08 AM >> To: WAI-IG >> Subject: RE: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing >federal >> w ebsite >> >> >> >> Hi! >> I see a whole lot of criticism of what is a pretty minimal >> description of a >> part of an activity that is definitely going to be better than >> not doing it. >> The stick seems to be all some of you know how to do. How about >> the carrot >> and see if we can encourage people to start down this road >> without setting a >> standard none of us can meet? No way all the discussed >> environments need to >> be tested if the AT follows the standards and the web site is >> also designed >> to the standards. >> >> The expectations are way up there and the criticism is pretty quick on >the >> draw. >> >> Best regards, >> Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:18 AM >> To: Joe Clark; WAI-IG >> Subject: Re: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing >federal >> website >> >> >> >> any testing which reaches the rong conconclusions and passes them off >as >> correct is bad. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org> >> To: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:42 PM >> Subject: Re: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing >federal >> website >> >> >> >> > As others have mentioned, this is not the right approach to testing >> > website accessibility. At best it tests one narrowly-defined aspect >> > of accessibility >> >> ...which nonetheless needs testing. >> >> > at worst it risks reinforcing any bad practices >> > you may have - such as authoring to browser behaviour at the expense >> > of presenting the website contents clearly >> >> ...which you have no evidence they are doing. >> >> > Both JAWS and Window-Eyes deal with one particular disability >> >> ...which nonetheless requires accommodation, and these are the two >> most popular ways to do it. >> >> > Both are themselves inaccessible to many users, by virtue of cost >> > and the prerequisites required to install them >> >> ...which is irrelevant and a tiresome albatross hung around the >> necks of the accessibility "movement." By this reasoning, no >> adaptive technology should be developed if it cannot be handed out >> for free to everyone who could possibly use it. >> >> If you disagree with the planned testing of actual disabled users, >> don't participate in it. But we need more such testing, and, as I >> argue in my book, even sub-optimal testing of disabled users beats >> the heck out of none at all. >> >> -- >> >> Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org >> Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ >> <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/> >> >> > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:22:28 UTC