RE: stroking authors who report [Bobby] manual-check warnings as if accessibility results

Al,

Sorry I haven't been able to connect with you on this.

Although I think it is an important issue and one that I would like to
personally help address, there are several other things that are higher
priority for me right now.

Perhaps EOWG can address the general issue with the evaluation resource
suite revisions which are in-progress now (thus the CC to Shadi & EO
Editors). 

Best,
~ Shawn



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Lawton Henry [mailto:shawn@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:40 PM
> To: 'Al Gilman'
> Cc: 'wai-liaison@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: stroking authors who report [Bobby] manual-check warnings as
> if accessibility results
> 
> Al,
> 
> The EO Working Group does not have an established practice of how to
> address situations like this. WAI staff has responded to some similar
> situations; however, we don't have an established practice, or even good
> records of past interactions.
> 
> I think it would be good to - and we've talked about this as a troublesome
> area (e.g., DRC report)... just not sure where to fit it into the
> priorities (read: too many important things to do and not enough time :(
> 
> I think it would be most efficient to talk. You availability?
> 
> (p.s. before i started with w3c i did this:
> http://uiaccess.com/evaltools.html which is a first step - but haven't
> done any more with it)
> 
> ~ Shawn
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Al Gilman [mailto:Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:46 PM
> > To: Shawn Lawton Henry
> > Cc: wai-liaison@w3.org
> > Subject: stroking authors who report [Bobby] manual-check
> > warnings as if accessibility results
> >
> >
> > Shawn,
> >
> > At the PF F2F last week I took the action item:
> >
> > >action: Al check with Shawn on how to approach 'interactions' author
> > >on manual check warnings
> >
> > Article I was reacting to. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1029036.1029052
> >
> > In this article, Ms. Gill presents the results of Bobby analysis of
> > the site home pages
> > as an accessibility evaluation.
> >
> > The results as summarized in the article include the number of
> > checkpoint failures and
> > the number of manual check warnings.
> >
> > There is no indication that the manual checks were manually
> > performed, no reflection of the
> > evaluator's opinion as to whether the manual checks were passed or
> > failed by the content
> > evaluated.
> >
> > To me this was below the standard that I would like to expect of a
> > usability expert and teacher
> > such as Ms. Gill.
> >
> > But I don't know the best way to follow up to get more people to do
> > better in the future.
> >
> > Does the EO Working Group have an established practice of how to
> > intervene with quotable
> > authors in situations like this?  The ACM portal offers a discussion
> > opportunity, so that we
> > are not limited to corresponding with the author, but I would kinda
> > like to win this author around
> > to changing her practice as regards reporting accessibility results
> > in usability reviews.
> >
> > Maybe we should talk; maybe you have a quick email-able answer.
> >
> > Whatever you like, please let me know.
> >
> > Al
> >
> > +1.703.271.8876
> >

Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 22:49:01 UTC