- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:55:01 +0000
- To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Here are the answers submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for Shawn Henry. --------------------------------- Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility ---- * ( ) I accept this version of the document as is * (x) I accept this version of the document, and suggest changes below * ( ) I accept this version of the document only with the changes below * ( ) I do not accept this version of the document because of the comments below * ( ) I abstain (not vote) --------------------------------- Comments ---- Comments on the document, formatted as described above. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): priority: [editor's discretion] location: Intro current wording: "References to related evaluation resources are mentioned throughout this document. Most of these resources can be found in this resource suite, Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility." suggested revision: delete paragraph priority: [editor's discretion] location: Recommended Expertise current wording: "Effective evaluation of Web accessibility requires more than simply running an evaluation tool over a Web site." suggested revision: over>on "... running an evaluation tool on a Web site." priority: [editor's discretion] location: Recommended Expertise current wording: "The following list includes recommended expertise across a variety of areas, and provides links to initial resources, listed at the end of this document, which may be useful in learning more about those areas." suggested revision: "The following list includes recommended expertise across several areas, and links to resources listed at the end of this document that provide guidance in those areas." priority: [editor's discretion] location: Recommended Expertise current wording: "Comprehensive and effective evaluations require evaluators with an understanding of Web technologies, evaluation tools, barriers that people with disabilities experience, assistive technologies and approaches that people with disabilities use, and accessibility guidelines and techniques." suggested revision: add CAN here: "...barriers that people with disabilities can experience..." rationale: if the site is accessible, people don't experience barriers priority: [editor's discretion] location: Recommended Expertise current wording: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and Techniques suggested revision: add acronym: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Techniques rationale: acronym more recognizable to people who know it priority: [editor's discretion] location: Recommended Expertise current wording: "Disability barriers and assistive technologies and adaptive strategies" suggested revision: commas "Disability barriers, assistive technologies, and adaptive strategies" priority: [editor's discretion] location: Approaches for Collaborative Evaluation current wording: "When first conducting a Web accessibility evaluation, the initial approach in many organizations is to assign the task to an individual within the organization, or to outsource it. However," suggested revision: delete priority: [editor's discretion] location: Approaches for Collaborative Evaluation current wording: "This approach can allow an organization to draw from different in-house expertise, while relying on outside experts where needed." suggested revision: "This approach allows an organization to use in-house expertise as well as outside experts where needed." rationale: priority: [editor's discretion] location: Approaches for Collaborative Evaluation current wording: "a group of colleagues, distributed within a larger organization; for instance, Web developers working together across different units of a large corporation" suggested revision: remove comma, across>from: "a group of colleagues distributed within a larger organization; for instance, Web developers working together from different units of a large corporation" priority: [editor's discretion] location: Approaches for Collaborative Evaluation current wording: "a group of individuals distributed across related organizations such as government agencies, each with the obligation to monitor accessibility of their own Web site, but who choose to combine their diverse expertise & perspectives to create higher quality evaluations" suggested revision: "a group of individuals distributed across related organizations, such as government agencies, who combine their diverse expertise and perspectives for higher quality evaluations" priority: [editor's discretion] location: Considerations in Combining Expertise current wording: "Centralized vs. distributed evaluation capability" suggested revision: vs.>versus: "Centralized versus distributed evaluation capability rationale: priority: [editor's discretion] location: Considerations in Combining Expertise current wording: "Once gaps in internal expertise are clear, an organization can prioritize its needs for external expertise." suggested revision: edit first part of sentence rationale: seems like you have to wait until "gaps in internal expertise are clear". in reality, if you don't know much about it, it is best to hire espertise to help you figure out what the gaps are priority: [editor's discretion] location: "The internal gaps are often in areas of knowledge specific to disability and/or accessibility;" & "Inclusion of people with disabilities in a collaborative group can contribute to development of a better understanding of accessibility issues within the organization, and/or to maintaining awareness" current wording: "...and/or..." suggested revision: delete "/or" so it is just: "and" rationale: "and/or" not necessary, "and" simplier priority: [editor's discretion] location: "disability advocates from different organizations who collaborate in online fora to monitor accessibility of public and/or private Web sites" current wording: "...and/or..." suggested revision: delete "and/" so it is just: "or" rationale: "and/or" not necessary, "or" simplier.. actually, really don't see reason to even specifify public or private, could just say: "monitor accessibility of Web sites" priority: [editor's discretion] location: current wording: "In addition, even organizations with established user testing processes may need guidance on how to get feedback from users with disabilities." suggested revision: user>usability, get feedback from>include: "In addition, even organizations with established usability testing processes may need guidance on how to include users with disabilities." priority: [editor's discretion] location: Involving users in evaluation current wording: "Involving users in evaluation" suggested revision: "Involving users in evaluation throughout development" rationale: important issue to help combat -- that you just do eval at the end, esp. important for including PWDs effectively priority: [editor's discretion] location: Involving users in evaluation current wording: "Inclusion of people with disabilities in a collaborative group can contribute to development of a better understanding of accessibility issues ..." suggested revision: delete "development of": "Inclusion of people with disabilities in a collaborative group can contribute to a better understanding of accessibility issues ..." priority: [editor's discretion] location: Involving users in evaluation current wording: "Inclusion of people with disabilities in a collaborative group can contribute to development of a better understanding of accessibility issues within the organization, and/or to maintaining awareness of the urgency of addressing accessibility barriers on a site, in addition to their individual technical contributions to the evaluation." suggested revision: break into 2 sentences, with the "in addition to their individual technical contributions to the evaluation." idea separate priority: [editor's discretion] location: Involving users in evaluation current wording: "Regardless of the collective expertise of a collaborative group of evaluators in conducting conformance evaluations, an organization may want to ensure periodic review by users with a variety of disabilities. " suggested revision: delete priority: [editor's discretion] location: Communicating results current wording: "Collaborative teams may want to give particular attention to communicating the results of their evaluations to their customers clearly, since their reports represent the combined perspectives of different evaluators. " suggested revision: delete or clarify rationale: dont knwo what the point of this section is priority: [editor's discretion] location: Getting and giving feedback current wording: "Feedback from experienced groups of evaluators on evaluation resources such as W3C/WAI's Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" suggested revision: add "resource suite" so it is: "... Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility resource suite" rationale: so when you say "resource suite" in next sentence they know what you're talking about priority: [editor's discretion] location: Appendix suggested revision: move "Validation tools for Web technologies" down with other eval tools priority: [editor's discretion] location: footer current wording: <p><strong>Version:</strong> <strong>DRAFT</strong> $Date: 2006/03/13 04:04:22 $ <strong>[<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html">changelog</a>]</strong> </p> suggested revision: <p><strong>Version: <a href="@@changelog">2.0</a></strong> Up-to-date as of March 2006<br/> OR if don't want to have version number: <p><strong>Content last updated: <a href="@@changelog">15 March 2006</a></strong><br/> rationale: new format priority: [editor's discretion] location: footer current wording: <p>Editor: Judy Brewer. Contributors: <a href="../../EOWG-Members.html"><acronym title="Education and Outreach Working Group">P</acronym>articipants</a> of <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/"><acronym title="Education and Outreach Working Group">EOWG</acronym></a>. Created with support from <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/">WAI-TIES</a>, a project of the European Commission <acronym title="Information Society Technologies">IST</acronym> Programme. [<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standard-harmon-changelog.html">changelog</a>]</p> suggested revision: Editor: Judy Brewer, and the Education and Outreach Working Group (<a href="/WAI/EO/">EOWG</a>). Developed with support from <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/"><acronym title="Web Accessibility Initiative: Training, Implementation, Education, Support">WAI-TIES</acronym></a>, a project of the European Commission <acronym title="Information Society Technologies">IST</acronym> Programme.</p> rationale: new format priority: [editor's discretion] location: footer current wording: "File (not content) last updated on $Date: 2006/02/03 23:06:01 $ by $Author: jbrewer $" suggested revision: delete rationale: new format These answers were last modified on 16 March 2006 at 05:53:35 U.T.C. by Shawn Henry Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/expertise-2006/ until 2006-03-18. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 05:55:04 UTC