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

Re: for content review: Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:43:10 -0500
Message-ID: <433DB16E.1010908@w3.org>
To: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
Cc: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>

Roberto,

Thank you very much for your review and very clearly organized comments! See below.

> 2.2. 
> * priority: [editor's discretion]
> * location: Introduction, 1st paragraph
> * current wording: "Broadening evaluation to involve people with
> disabilities can help better understand accessibility issues and implement
> more effective accessibility solutions."
> * suggested revision: remove the word "can" and give a clearer message:
> "Broadening evaluation to involve people with disabilities is the best way
> to better understand accessibility issues and implement more effective
> accessibility solutions."
> * rationale: the document tries to convince the developer not to refer only
> to normative guidelines and to involve users, that's why this concept should
> clearly present since the beginning.

removed "can".
did not add "best way" as that is [can't think of the term - adding value judgment or something].
added more encouragement & convincing in subsequent paragraphs

> * priority: [editor's discretion]
> * location: Introduction, end of 3rd paragraph
> * current wording: "Including people who are target "users" of your Web site
> throughout the development process helps Web developers implement
> accessibility more effectively, thus maximizing your investment in
> accessibility."
> * suggested revision: add the word "can": "Including people who are target
> "users" of your Web site throughout the development process can help Web
> developers implement accessibility more effectively, thus maximizing your
> investment in accessibility."
> * rationale: I think that generally including target users has the primary
> goal to test usability issues; some of the issue raised can be accessibility
> issues, but not always.

hum... adding "can" weakens it. ah, I see the issue - above sentence is missing "with PWDS" -- changed it to read "Collaborating with people with disabilities who are target "users" of your Web site..." which I think takes care of your concern.

> * priority: [editor's discretion]
> * location: "Drawing Conclusions and Reporting", 2nd paragraph
> * current wording: "When the evaluation is being used to improve a Web site,
> it is rarely necessary to distinguish between usability and accessibility
> issues."
> * suggested revision: remove paragraph
> * rationale: I think that is always necessary to distinguish between
> usability and accessibility issues.

done: sentence removed.

> 2.3. 
> This document works fine for the first three audiences, but with usability
> professional who know nothing about accessibility there may be some problem:
> the document doesn't explain in any way the difference between usability and
> accessibility. 

see change log & review notes (in upcoming e-mail) in which I propose that the issue of usability vs. accessibility is out of scope of this document. it's just too big & complex of an issue to address here.

Thanks,
~ Shawn
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 21:43:14 GMT

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