suggestions to adapt our process

There were two suggestions to adapt our process on the techniques call.

suggestion 1:  we should test our test criteria on real sites and get real
experience.
suggestion 2:  the second was that we limit the  discussions, such as the
amount of time we discuses each test and people limit their time discussing
a test (to 30seconds ?) or try not to speak to much on one call ect...


There is a lot experience of evaluators who test real sites every day, lots
of them, and often use automated tests very similar to the tests in
question. So on the one hand, the suggestion was  for  the more experience
to test real sites against the guidelines but   at the same time to make it
harder to allow people to share that knowledge with the group.

At the risk of seeming cynical I could  create a combined suggestion that we
are less interested in the real world experience of people belonging to the
group but prefer to replace it with official group certified real world
experience ( I actually think this would be a bad idea...)

My alternate , non cynical, suggestion:

1, We ask site evaluators, via lists like the interest group, to look at the
tests and comment on how useful they are , when they would flounder etc,
2, We make it easy for them to give their feedback. Care is taken to not
limit peoples  ability or  desire to contribute
3, Anyone who does not do real site testing and repair  is recommended to
try it - but not as a new deliverable for the group.


My opinion from real world experience is that no set of test type assertions
will always hold true. And, therefore, test assertions can do a disservice
to the flexibility of accessible content on the web.


Keep well and all the best,

Lisa

Lisa Seeman
UB Access
Tel: +972-2-648-3782 (please note our new number)
Website:   www.ubaccess.com

THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED FOR THE
RECIPIENT OF THIS E-MAIL ONLY.