- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:00:23 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
My action item was to review the document and identify the checkpoints that required usability-type evaluations to determine compliance. The proposal is to create a set of success criteria that could be integrated into a corporate usability testing cycle. These success criteria would be statements about the expected behavior of the typical user of the tool given that the tool is designed according to the guideline. In reviewing the guidelines it is clear that all the checkpoints in Guideline 3 and 4 fit into this category. Both guidelines deal with guiding and persuading the author to do "the right thing." This is not a hard science. How this is done varies greatly from tool to tool. We cannot give concrete instructions that would apply to the range of authoring tools. We need to take the approach of saying to the developer " You know your tool. You know your target user. In a way that works with your tool and your user group persuade your typical user to do these things. Here are some suggestions on how this can be done." I propose that for the success criteria for guideline 3 and 4 we add a class of success criteria that is a statement about the expected behavior of the typical author using the tool. We can structure the document so that these can be pulled out and added to a corporate usability rubric. Thoughts or suggestions? Jutta --
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:01:04 UTC