- From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:24:08 -0400
- To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010801125307.030e4040@pop.rcn.com>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/rev.html 1. ... There are a variety of tools and approaches for evaluating conformance to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. No single accessibility checker yet provides automatic comprehensive information or captures all problems with regard to the accessibility of a site; therefore evaluation involves a combination of approaches. These include human judgement where tools can only suggest potential problems. Goals for evaluating Web sites vary, and require different approaches to meet those goals: ... 2. Preliminary Review "To conduct a preliminary review, complete all four steps below." Rather, To conduct a preliminary review, perform the four independent tasks below. Also, we make a presumption that tested pages are valid. I'd put in plug for tidy (and possibly CSS) validity checkers, so we start with clean HTML pages. In list item 2. ...following steps may need to be done ... I question the implication that they are ordered steps. Instead they are alternative ways to gain information. Make them unordered list instead. 3. Use a Voice browser ... Again make sublist unordered. "if sighted, make sure that the monitor is turned off so as not to provide visual cues)" One cannot check 3.2 for "is the information presented in a similar logical order" if one has no (visual) basis for comparison. The downloaded Bobby will check linked pages, in same folder or external. Tidy can check multiple pages. WAVE when locally installed and active checks page by page as they are loaded. Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 13:44:33 UTC