Site Navigation: W3C Home > WAI Home > WAI Web Site Redesign Project > WAI Site Evaluation Summary


Web Site Content

Finding 19: Participants stated that the WAI site offered too many link options

As participants moved through the WAI Web site, they commented that the Web site overall was "far too wordy" and that they felt "overloaded" with link options and repetitive text. However, many of the participants stated that they would appreciate the inclusion of summary information describing linked documents, while reducing the amount of actual linked text, thus indicating more clearly what resource a given link would lead to, and reducing the visual "link clutter" on the pages.

Finding 20: Adding Information for "Accessibility Skeptics"

We asked participants what content, if any, they would like to see added to the WAI Web site. Many of the participants suggested the inclusion of information that would address the concerns of people who were doubtful of the importance of Web accessibility, and dubbed those persons "accessibility skeptics."

Finding 21: Participants suggested separating accessibility advocacy information from techniques information

At several points throughout the study the participants expressed an inability to distinguish between information designed to advocate accessibility practices, and information intended to support developers. They stated that the information was "too mixed" and that they would like to see advocacy information separated completely from coding techniques, preferably with each featured in its own, appropriately named, section of the WAI Web site.

Finding 22: Participants suggested creating a "Tool Shed" of advocacy materials

The study participants expressed great enthusiasm whenever they encountered presentation materials or documents designed for their use in business presentations, or for advocating Web accessibility. Participants uniformly identified these materials as "useful," "helpful," and in some cases "essential." However, we observed three significant aspects of these materials that caused difficulty for the study participants:

Finding 23: Participants expected submission forms to be automated

When we asked the study participants to show us how they would go about joining a WAI-related working group, they expressed outright shock that the process included a form, presented in ASCII text that they were expected to copy and paste into an email. They were further surprised to note that they were expected to carbon copy not one, but two persons on the email. "Why can't they automate this?" said one participant, while others regarded the process as "ridiculously complex and unnecessary. This should be automated . . . It's embarrassing."

Finding 24: The Quick Tips page was difficult for participants to understand

Participants' reactions to the Quick Tips page were mixed. When we asked them to describe, site unseen, what content they expected to find within the page based on the link text "Quick Tips," they described brief, summative lists of key coding techniques, organized around topics that Web developers were likely to encounter with frequency. "It's an FAQ of coding tips and tricks," envisioned one participant.

Upon arrival to the Quick Tips page, participants exhibited difficulties understanding the scope and purpose of the Quick Tips page. They stated that it had "several different types of information that seemed unrelated." Participants were also quick to notice the ordering information by which they could request a packet of Quick Tips cards for dissemination. However, they struggled to understand "what cards" and why they would need "several hundred cards" when, in the words of a participant, "I haven't even seen one yet."

When participants realized that the Quick Tips information was in fact a physical card, they suggested that the Quick Tips information be combined with other presentation materials (such as advocacy slide presentations) in a section called "Presentation Materials."

We observed that the information on ordering cards drew participants' attention more quickly than the quick tips information itself.

When they read through the quick tips, the participants stated that the tips were "helpful" but "vague." They suggested linking the key parts of each tip to relevant, technique-oriented information.

Though the term "Quick Tips" is a part of the W3C's branding, participants uniformly failed to connect the information on the Quick Tips page with the physical cards some of them realized late in their exploration that they had seen before. One participant exclaimed: "I have one of these cards on my desk at work! I had no idea that was this."

Finding 25: Participants suggested the inclusion of inline glossaries

Participants suggested that inline glossaries on pages where technical terminology was being used would save them the "time and effort" of seeking out definitions.

Finding 26: Participants gave high praise to coding examples

Participants exhibited extremely positive reactions to code examples they encountered on the WAI Web site. "Now this is helpful!" exclaimed one participant. They suggested that code examples should be more prominent and "easier to find" on the WAI Web site.

The visual mechanisms used to highlight and offset code examples, particularly the use of a different font color, and a box surrounding the code elements were uniformly lauded as appropriate and effective. However, given their location "deep" within the WAI Web site, participants rarely found the code examples, and in only a few cases were able to be located more than once.

Next: Nomenclature >>

Back to top