W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: best practices in site testing:

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0212181021470.25215-100000@tux.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/



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
>For what it's worth, the Canadian Federal Government offers the
>testing/verification steps for GoC web sites:
>* Use an automated accessibility tool and browser validation tool.
>note that software tools do not address all accessibility issues, such
>the meaningfulness of link text, the applicability of a text equivalent,
>* 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
>word with a spelling error. Eliminating grammar problems increases
>* Review the document for clarity and simplicity. Readability
>such as those generated by some word processors may be useful indicators
>clarity and simplicity. Better still, ask an experienced (human) editor
>review written content for clarity. Editors can also improve the
>of documents by identifying potentially sensitive cultural issues that
>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
>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
>screen reading technologies will be able to access the page content.
>> -----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
>> 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
>> 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
>> website
>> any testing which reaches the rong conconclusions and passes them off
>> 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
>> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:21 UTC