W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: "Combining Expertise" redraft and regrets

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:28:18 +0100
Message-ID: <43F5CF72.7000505@technosite.es>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

3. Does the new document title work?
I wonder whether "expertise" is he right word. There are few experts out 
there and most people wouldn't consider themselves to be one. Perhaps 
"knowledge" or possible "knowledge and skills" would be better.

Rather than "combining" perhaps "bringing together" might lead to an 
alternative word although I can't think of one now. I like the word 
"pooling" but many people wouldn't understand it I think.

4. Do the revised section headers work?
"Recommended Expertise" sounds odd to me, but I don't really know why. 
Perhaps it's out of the scope implied by "combining" in the document title.

The list doesn't actually include expertise, rather it's a list of 
things the combined team should know about. Perhaps say that individuals 
may not know them all, but a combination should.

6. Revised intro okay?
I think that the phrase "While it is possible for individuals to 
evaluate Web accessibility effectively if they have training..." is 
awkward in that it's talking about each individual. For example 
substitute the inelegant "he or she" for "they", like "While it is 
possible for one individual to evaluate Web accessibility effectively if 
he or she has training and experience across a broad range of 
disciplines, it is less likely that one individual...".

I think perhaps the introduction should mention that this is about 
evaluation throughout the website lifecycle; that it includes developers 
and designers. This is implicit in "broad range of disciplines". Maybe 
the word "lifecycle" would be sufficient.

7. Does "opportunities for collaborative eval" section work better than 
prev "types of teams" section?
This section doesn't seem to include disabled individual users who work 
in an organization (not specialists). They may be able to provide 
insight about problems but not be able to do an evaluation, but could be 
included in a team.

Hope this helps. Sorry I can't attend the phone meeting today.

best regards,

Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios)
achuter@technosite.es
www.technosite.es
Tel. +34 91 121 03 35






Judy Brewer wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Following our teleconference on 10 Feb, where we reviewed the 
> requirements, changelog, and revised draft of "Review Teams for 
> Evaluating Web Accessibility," I've done a major reworking of the document.
> 
> We will be adjusting the agenda based on availability of drafts for 
> discussion. A main focus will be on this revised draft, so please read 
> this if you have the opportunity before the call.
> 
> Our primary discussion will be on:
>         Combining Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility
>         
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/combining-expertise-20060216.html
>         This is roughly the same document as "review teams," but with a 
> new name
>         It has been significantly revised
> 
> Related materials include:
>         About Combining Expertise... [this is the document requirements, 
> which has been updated]
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html#about
>         Changelog
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html#changes
>         Existing version on our site:
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html
>         Draft from last week:
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/reviewteams-20060209.html
> 
> Discussion questions include:
>         1. Approval of revised document requirements?
>         2. Does the focus on "combining expertise" work?
>         3. Does the new document title work?
>         4. Do the revised section headers work?
>         5. Does the flipped order of the sections work?
>         6. Revised intro okay?
>         7. Does "opportunities for collaborative eval" section work 
> better than prev "types of teams" section?
>         8. How's the content in the "considerations" section?
>         9. Other? (see also qu's on changelog items)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Judy
> 
> ###
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 13:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:38 UTC