Re: Agenda item #2 Please check

Hi Eric,

Looking much better, thank you for working on it.

A couple of comments:

# Page 4
  - Change "Paste the URL(s) of ..." to "Paste the URL(s) or description 
of ..." (not every web page or web page state has a URL);
  - "Please say if you are “very confident”, “fairly confident” or “not 
confident” that your sample is representative" seems unnecessary;

# Pages 5-9
  - Does it really make sense to separate the criteria by principles in 
this survey? It seems quite unnatural to the way I would evaluate;

# Page 10
  - Change "Will you use WCAG-EM in future? If not, what should be 
changed to better fit into your website evaluation practice" to "Provide 
any suggestions you might have to further improve WCAG-EM";
  - Remove "Would your recommend the use of WCAG-EM to others?";


Best,
   Shadi


On 3.3.2014 12:33, Velleman, Eric wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Below is a link to the latest online version of the survey that includes the comments made in last weeks telco. We will empty the database before we start the survey so you are free to have a look. If there is anything else we have to fix before we make the survey public, please let me know before wednesday. We could discuss them in our telco this week.
>
> https://utwentebs.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cGAAMLdmjk3FmHX
>
> Please do NOT spread the link as the EvalTF is still working on it.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: Velleman, Eric
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 februari 2014 14:03
> Aan: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Onderwerp: Agenda item #2 Please check
>
> Dear all,
>
> Below is a link to the current online version of the survey.
> Please do NOT spread the link as the EvalTF is still working on it.
>
> https://utwentebs.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cGAAMLdmjk3FmHX
>
>
> 1. Does the survey have accessibility problems?
>
> 2. How about the length (10 pages). Is that too much? or should we chop it up into more pages?
>
> 3. Checkbox or radiobutton?
>
> Explanation of #3: Please look at the pages where you check the Success Criteria (SC). The survey now uses checkboxes. Reason: the methodology asks people to check every page for all SC. It proposes the possibility to check only if there is a fail, but this is open in the methodology. Therefore, we should also support that people check page by page. Some pages will pass, others will fail. We want to see what people do and if this part of WCAG-EM is clear to them. It now only works in the SC from 1.1.1 to 1.4.5 (I am waiting for the outcome of the discussion before I change the rest).
>
> Alternatively we could provide for every SC three radiobuttons (Pass, Fail, Not present) and three editfields:
> a) Paste the URL(s) or .. where you found the Fail
> b) Optional: paste the URL(s) or .. where you found the Pass or Not Present and give a short explanation
> c) Give an explanation of the Pass, Fail and/or Not Present
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 3 March 2014 14:15:10 UTC