- From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:25:21 -0400
- To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
At 2001-07-25 18:17, Judy Brewer wrote:
>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.
The second requires judgement. It includes accessibility evaluation,
identification of problems, and assessment of site acceptability. It is
significantly more work, in that there may be many judgement calls.
When compounded with integrating the differences in accessibility among
URIs on the same site, it needs a comprehensive evaluation. I'd not
hide the fact. Rather I'd clearly limit the preliminary review to the
"black and white" cases that assessment tools can clearly resolve.
>- 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
I prefer this to keep the distinction clear.
> >
> >to differentiate the two approaches even more.
> >
> >Andrew
> >
Regards/Harvey
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 01:52:03 UTC