W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > September 2005

[wbs] Henk Snetselaar response to 'EOWG Call for Review: Evaluation Resource Suite, 2005 September'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:40:01 +0000
To: h.snetselaar@bartimeus.nl,wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-081f506ab5af4bef25e1687199911d14@cgi.w3.org>


Here are the answers submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: Evaluation
Resource Suite, 2005 September' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for
Henk Snetselaar.



---------------------------------
Support for the 4 re-organized pages
----
I:



 * (x) accept the 4 re-organized pages as is
 * ( ) accept the 4 re-organized pages, suggest changes below
 * ( ) accept the 4 re-organized pages only with the changes below
 * ( ) do not accept the 4 re-organized pages because of the comments
below
 * ( ) abstain (not vote)





---------------------------------
Support for Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools (new page)
----
I:



 * ( ) accept the Selecting Tools page as is
 * (x) accept the Selecting Tools page, suggest changes below
 * ( ) accept the Selecting Tools page only with the changes below
 * ( ) do not accept the Selecting Tools page because of the comments
below
 * ( ) abstain (not vote)





---------------------------------
Overview page
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Preliminary Review page
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Conformance Evaluation page
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Specific Contexts page
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Selecting Tools page
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
For tuture versions: 
Some accessibility evaluation tools offered on the web may not even have
the name 'accessibility evaluation tool'. You will have heard about
'sildtide' that claims to evaluate according to W3C guidelines and gives
the most horrible web site a nice figure, sometimes even a 10 (in a range
1-10) and reports 'All webpages were found to be fully compliant with the
W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and therefore likely not in
violation of the British Disability Discrimination Act.' without any
manual checking. I tried the www.mcdonals.nl a horrible site in terms of
accessibility, but by silktide fully compliant. 

My message is that we should think whether we should something about
non-tools that claims to give a accessibility status of your site.
Henk




---------------------------------
General comments on the resource suite as a whole
----


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 



These answers were last modified on 15 September 2005 at 12:34:59 E.S.T.
by Henk Snetselaar

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eval-2005sept/ until 2005-09-15.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:12 GMT