Re: Evaluation Report Generator minor things

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your comments!

Inline my initial responses:


On 1.8.2014 16:58, Kevin White wrote:
> Hi Wilco, Shadi,
>
> First off; I would have bitten your hand off for something like this when I was regularly auditing. I still might! ;)
>
> Some minor things for your consideration, in no particular order:
>
> • Make Save more apparent throughout - top right with nice disk icon to reinforce?
> • Make Load more apparent at the start and less apparent throughout - it is unlikely that I would load from anywhere other than the start.

Excellent suggestions but we will probably need to look at them later on 
in the process. Could you add these suggestions to GitHub please?


> • 5. Report Findings: Make Evaluation Date be a range.

As far as I know, this is a text box and people can fill anything they 
like. I personally think a reporting date is more common that a date 
range but both are considered in WCAG-EM. In any case, I think we can 
clarify this in the info box. Maybe we can also add "(or date range)" 
after the date in the placeholder text but that may add complexity and 
some people were already arguing for less placeholder text.


> • Really minor, but increase the white space at the bottom of the page. ‘Next’ is easily lost down there.

Actually there is an entire footer missing, which should add spacing.


> • 2. Explore Website: Is there a baseline or standard set of Web Technologies. It would be ideal if one could simply select from drop down and the specification would be added. It may be that a combo box would be required to allow free text as well.

Yes, there will be a pre-set list to select from, but you could add 
additional ones not in the list too.


> • 3. Select Sample: Combine the Structured Sample and Randomly Selected Sample into one list. If Randomly Selected items need to be identified, include a checkbox to do so. This simplifies this and makes it more likely that the Randomly Selected pages would be identified.

I would personally prefer to stick to WCAG-EM structure as much as 
possible, also to help explain the terms "structured sample" and 
"randomly selected sample". If we have it in one section, it will be 
difficult to explain them individually.

Do you feel strongly about this? What is the issue you want to fix?


> • 3. Select Sample: Include an indicator of the number of randomly selected pages that need to be selected based on the number of pages in the structured sample. This could update as pages are added. The only downside of this is if the website is small enough that it is feasible to evaluate every page.

Good point! I think we should add this to the feature request list. 
Could you add that to GitHub, please?


> • 3. Select Sample: Is ‘Handle’ the best phrase? What about ‘Title’, or ‘Name’?

I agree, "Handle" is not the best choice. But "Title" would be too 
confusing with the actual title of the web page (eg "homepage" vs 
"welcome to example.org"). "Name" also seems ambiguous. I think this 
could be discussed with EO in the next round of clean-up.


> One question I had was how a user could attach evidence to the report. It is briefly mentioned in step 5, but there is no apparent way to do this… and I can imagine that it is not that feasible.

Yes, I was wondering about that too. I guess for the first release 
attachments need to be made manually. That is, you download the HTML and 
add your appendices manually. In later versions we may be able to 
provide an "attach" feature where the attachments are stored in the 
browser session along with the data. My worry is that this may slow down 
the browser, depending on the attachment sizes. Another one for GitHub, 
please.

Thanks,
   Shadi


> Thanks
>
> Kevin
>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 17:12:55 UTC