WAI Home: Kynn's Initial Feedback

WAI Homepage Feedback

1.  Search is hard to get to, as noted before.

     Recommend:  Search input field, button on home page.

2.  Terminology "unwrap table" is geekspeak not user language,
     as noted before.

     Recommend:  Use "Single Column" or similar terminology to
     better reflect user understanding.

3.  Initial internal links are not clearly internal links; no
     indication what they do.  Without this, they can be confusing,
     especially as they use the same link text as the anchors below.
     (A visual user who wants "news" will be uncertain as to whether
     she should scroll down, click on the first link, or click on
     the second link.

     Recommend:  Making it clearer that the top bar of links go to
     anchors on this page; perhaps "On this page:" or simply using
     "[ ... ]" square brackets around the options.

4.  Link colors are not differentiated enough between followed and
     unfollowed links; according to the CSS, the difference is between
     #330066 and #000066.  This is not enough contrast for a typical
     user to be able to discern, effectively making followed and
     unfollowed links identical.

     Recommend:  Use a decidedly "blue" color for unfollowed links
     and a decidedly "purple" color for followed links (as is the
     standard in most browsers).  #000099 and #660066 _may_ work
     (I haven't tested them).

5.  There are no validation/WCAG logos at the bottom of this page.

     Recommend:  Like the W3C homepage itself, the WCAG homepage
     should proudly display valid HTML and CSS buttons as well as the
     appropriate WCAG button.

6.  The format of some news items is confusing and gives little or
     no information.  For example, "W3C Note released: Accessibility
     Features of SVG" requires an understanding of the W3C process
     (to know what a "W3C note" and "released" means) as well as
     an idea of what SVG is.  "WAI Comments on U.S. Section 508
     NPRM" means nothing to anyone who doesn't already know what
     section 508 is.  The date format can be confusing and hard to
     parse while skimming the page.

     Recommend:  Unless there is a W3C internal standard to the
     contrary, suggest using a format for dates that is easier to
     understand, such as including the name of the month.

     Here's a suggestion for rewriting the two news items currently

     * 07 August 2000:
       New W3C Advisory Note:  <a>Accessibility Features of
       Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)</a>

     * 31 May 2000:
       <a>Read WAI comments</a> on proposed U.S. Section 508
       web accessibility regulations

     Note the blank line after the date, the more explanatory
     description for each item, the friendlier date format, and
     the expansion of the SVG initialism.

7.  I've never understood the W3C's "last updated" format, which
     seems to consist of gobbedlygook surrounding the actual date,
     and offers too much information (the time). E.g.:
     $Date: 2000/09/19 04:25:04 $

     This may "look techie" but it's not user friendly.  The date
     format isn't even the same as the _other_ unfriendly date
     format (which would be 2000-09-19) so the current design uses
     two different formats for dates on the same page.  There is
     absolutely no reason to include the time on the page, as this
     is not a new site that gets updated hourly, and the time format
     renders the data even more meaningless since it provides no
     indication of the time zone.  (Is this universal time, Boston
     time, or the time of the person viewing the page?)

     Recommend:  The following format:

     Last Updated:  19 September 2000

     If the date information is necessary for internal checks and
     scripts, this should be included in a meta tag and not exposed
     to the user!

8.  The left menu sidebar is confusing, as it's not clear that
     the title "resources" applies to all of the following items
     on the table.  (And, in fact, the "Resources" title does not
     apply to "Search", although the layout implies that it does.)
     Part of the problem is with unclear terminology.  For example,
     when I see "Training" I expect to be taken to information on
     how I can be trained to create accessible web pages; I don't
     expect to see resources for people developing training.

     The titles on the Resources page do not correspond to the
     titles on the home page in all cases; usually the Resources
     page titles are more accurate.

     Recommend:  Use the titles listed on the Resources page, such
     as "Training Resources".

9.  The source code is not XHTML 1.0 compatible and is not well
     commented.  Web designers will look to the WAI site and the W3C
     site as a model for how to do things, so appropriate comments
     should be included in the HTML and CSS files.  The site should
     be built in backwards-compatible XHTML 1.0 instead of HTML 4.0.

     Recommend:  Use XHTML 1.0, use comments.  Also, is there any
     reason not to use Strict instead of Transitional?

Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 13:25:40 UTC