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

[wbs] Shawn Henry 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 13:55:01 +0000
To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-e94e6a7f596a911b88968129a511ad9a@cgi.w3.org>


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



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



 * ( ) 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
 * ( ) 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): 
version/priority: editor's discretion
current: "While it does not provide checkpoint-by-checkpoint testing
techniques, it does include general..."
suggestion: swap 'include' & 'provide' "While it does not include
checkpoint-by-checkpoint testing techniques, it does provide general..."
rationale: more positive about what's there

version/priority: editor's discretion
current: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/">Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0."
suggestion: ", such as the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php">Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG)"
rationale: no need to specify 1.0 and taking it out would avoid having to
update it with WCAG 2.0

version/priority: editor's discretion
current: "Describes an approach to..." and "Describes a method for..."
suggestion: consider using either 'approach' or 'method' for both
descriptions
rationale: more consistent, easier to skim

version/priority: editor's discretion
current: "A comprehensive list of Web accessibility evaluation tools."
suggestion: "Provides a comprehensive list of Web accessibility evaluation
tools."
rationale: consistent with others, easier to skim

version/priority: list for next version
suggestion: consider re-writing the descriptions to get rid of "Web sites"
and make more broad






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


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





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


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
version/priority: editor's discretion
current: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/">Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0."
suggestion: ", such as the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php">Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG)"
rationale: no need to specify 1.0 and taking it out would avoid having to
update it with WCAG 2.0

version/priority: editor's discretion
current: "Evaluations that combine technical assessment and usability
testing of accessibility features can be called comprehensive
evaluations."
suggestion: take out 'features' -- "Evaluations that combine technical
assessment and usability testing for accessibility can be called
comprehensive evaluations."
rationale: accessibility should be incorporated, not in separate
"features"




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


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





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


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
(I want to think about an alternative to "Usages of evaluation tools".
Will do so later today...)




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


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
NOTE: I might have more comments later today - but wanted to go ahead and
send these now...

* titles
version/priority: editor's discretion
current: 
- Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
- Preliminary Review of Web Sites for Accessibility
- Conformance Evaluation of Web Sites for Accessibility
suggested:
- Evaluating Web Accessibility
- Preliminary Review of Web Accessibility
- Conformance Evaluation of Web Accessibility
rationale: takes out "Sites", simplier, smoother, more broad, avoids risk
of "Web sites" seeming to exclude Web applications

* Related Pages
version/priority: editor's discretion
suggestion: add a section at the end of each document:
<h2>Related Pages</h2>
<p>This document is part of a multi-page <a href="Overview">Evaluating Web
Accessibility resource suite</a> that outlines different approaches for
evaluating Web accessibility.</p> 



These answers were last modified on 15 September 2005 at 13:50:46 E.S.T.
by Shawn Henry

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 13:55:04 GMT

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