Re: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility

Yes, agreed. I think it gives an important message.

Charles

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au wrote:


  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






-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 04:37:46 UTC