Having been more or less involved in the review project from the start, and 
being a "professional" Web access reviewer, I am pleased to see the draft 
document "Process for Reviewing Websites"

	[ http://www.w3.org/2000/04/wareview ]

I think Charles, Sylvie and Gregory have nicely summarized the criteria for 
providing an effective site evaluation.  I am very pleased to note that the 
present level of detail allows for some leeway in setting up and managing 
evaluation teams.

I am concerned that being too proscriptive (e.g. requiring a team to 
include six people with specific abilities using different assistive 
technologies, one WCAG domain expert, one W3C language domain expert, etc.) 
will prevent most volunteer review groups and many governmental or 
commercial concerns from getting involved, simply because of the resource 
and management implications.

As both Jutta Treviranus (University of Toronto Adaptive Technology 
Resource Centre) and I  described during the EO meeting at CSUN (both of 
our organizations do commercial accessibility reviews), individual 
evaluations can vary enormously in scope and detail... from simple 
demonstrations (as Starling Access Services is doing for the Government of 
Canada) to incredibly detailed, line-by-line code and usability evaluations 
costing the clients thousands of dollars (as both Jutta and I have also done).

What we have to keep in mind with the EO Review project is that Web masters 
are not asking us to do this, and certainly not paying for the 
"service".  If I understand the process, someone will nominate a site or 
sites to be reviewed and the team in the designated regional area will 
review and comment.  (By the way, the site selection process is not 
mentioned in the draft document... it would be nice to see some thoughts on 
that in writing as well.)

I think that we should continue to aim for the least complex methodology 
that produces the best possible results, without crossing the line into 
costly or time-consuming efforts.  I grant that line may be difficult to 

I would like to emphasize (in the methodology section) that clear and 
detailed documentation of any review procedure is critical for both the 
client and any third party reading the review.  It is especially important 
to note any assumptions made and any  reasons for decisions to limit the 
breadth and depth of a particular review.

Chuck Letourneau
Starling Access Services
  "Access A World Of Possibility"
   e-mail: info@starlingweb.com
    URL: http://www.starlingweb.com
     Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 20:07:05 UTC