- From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:12:28 +1000
- To: jbrewer@w3.org
- Cc: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Judy, Your suggestion is even better. Andrew
Judy Brewer
<jbrewer@w3.org To: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>
> cc: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: Evaluating Web Sites for
w3c-wai-eo-requ Accessibility
est@w3.org
26/07/01 08:17
Andrew,
I'm wondering, though, whether that wouldn't just leave people more likely
to pick the first one ("well we'll just use the preliminary review
approach, since comprehensive evaluation looks excessive, like another
animal entirely").
I'm tempted to call the first one "preliminary review" and the second one
simply "evaluation" -- in other words, the second one is the only approach
that properly evaluates a site.
- Judy
At 12:36 AM 7/21/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>WRT Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/rev.html>
>
>What about
>
>2. Preliminary Review (as discussed)
>3. Comprehensive Evaluation
>
>to differentiate the two approaches even more.
>
>Andrew
>
--
Judy Brewer jbrewer@w3.org +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 22:15:10 UTC