- From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:15:18 -0400
- To: "Karl Hebenstreit, Jr." <karlhjr@home.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
I really like Karl's three-level review model. It is simple, yet
adaptable. Because subsequent levels build on the procedures of the
previous level, documentation is simplified. I especially like the idea of
indicating "what will be missed" by lower level evaluations.
Of course, even "full" reviews may not cover the entire spectrum of
accessibility, and reviewers should also report on any gaps in their
coverage (e.g. if the site was not reviewed specifically for access to
persons with cognitive disabilities or to persons whose first language is
not the same as that used on the site).
Regards,
Chuck Letourneau
At 5/2/00 12:29 AM , Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. wrote:
>... For this type of Level system to be practical, the levels should be
>additive, so that a Level 2 review would be additional
>procedures to Level 1. It would also be extremely helpful to identify
>which access issues are addressed (or left remaining as
>potential outstanding issues) after each level review
----
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 Tuesday, 2 May 2000 09:15:29 UTC