- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:55:01 +0000
- To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Here are the answers submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: Evaluation Resource Suite, 2005 September' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for Shawn Henry. --------------------------------- Support for the 4 re-organized pages ---- I: * ( ) accept the 4 re-organized pages as is * ( ) accept the 4 re-organized pages, suggest changes below * ( ) accept the 4 re-organized pages only with the changes below * ( ) do not accept the 4 re-organized pages because of the comments below * ( ) abstain (not vote) --------------------------------- Support for Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools (new page) ---- I: * ( ) accept the Selecting Tools page as is * ( ) accept the Selecting Tools page, suggest changes below * ( ) accept the Selecting Tools page only with the changes below * ( ) do not accept the Selecting Tools page because of the comments below * ( ) abstain (not vote) --------------------------------- Overview page ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): version/priority: editor's discretion current: "While it does not provide checkpoint-by-checkpoint testing techniques, it does include general..." suggestion: swap 'include' & 'provide' "While it does not include checkpoint-by-checkpoint testing techniques, it does provide general..." rationale: more positive about what's there version/priority: editor's discretion current: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/">Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0." suggestion: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php">Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)" rationale: no need to specify 1.0 and taking it out would avoid having to update it with WCAG 2.0 version/priority: editor's discretion current: "Describes an approach to..." and "Describes a method for..." suggestion: consider using either 'approach' or 'method' for both descriptions rationale: more consistent, easier to skim version/priority: editor's discretion current: "A comprehensive list of Web accessibility evaluation tools." suggestion: "Provides a comprehensive list of Web accessibility evaluation tools." rationale: consistent with others, easier to skim version/priority: list for next version suggestion: consider re-writing the descriptions to get rid of "Web sites" and make more broad --------------------------------- Preliminary Review page ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Conformance Evaluation page ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): version/priority: editor's discretion current: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/">Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0." suggestion: ", such as the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php">Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)" rationale: no need to specify 1.0 and taking it out would avoid having to update it with WCAG 2.0 version/priority: editor's discretion current: "Evaluations that combine technical assessment and usability testing of accessibility features can be called comprehensive evaluations." suggestion: take out 'features' -- "Evaluations that combine technical assessment and usability testing for accessibility can be called comprehensive evaluations." rationale: accessibility should be incorporated, not in separate "features" --------------------------------- Specific Contexts page ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Selecting Tools page ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): (I want to think about an alternative to "Usages of evaluation tools". Will do so later today...) --------------------------------- General comments on the resource suite as a whole ---- Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): NOTE: I might have more comments later today - but wanted to go ahead and send these now... * titles version/priority: editor's discretion current: - Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility - Preliminary Review of Web Sites for Accessibility - Conformance Evaluation of Web Sites for Accessibility suggested: - Evaluating Web Accessibility - Preliminary Review of Web Accessibility - Conformance Evaluation of Web Accessibility rationale: takes out "Sites", simplier, smoother, more broad, avoids risk of "Web sites" seeming to exclude Web applications * Related Pages version/priority: editor's discretion suggestion: add a section at the end of each document: <h2>Related Pages</h2> <p>This document is part of a multi-page <a href="Overview">Evaluating Web Accessibility resource suite</a> that outlines different approaches for evaluating Web accessibility.</p> These answers were last modified on 15 September 2005 at 13:50:46 E.S.T. by Shawn Henry Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eval-2005sept/ until 2005-09-15. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:55:04 UTC