Replies: 13 comments 3 replies
-
+100 for grouping them. Maybe:
And maybe grouping by theme within there? And probably grouping and/or clear indication of:
... not sure how that relates to the grouping above, though :-) Some specifics in "shawn" column of Easy Checks - Prioritization (google sheet) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Just to flag a comment I made in the EO meeting on 9th June; having a small number isn't necessarily the important thing. Ensuring that the overview page doesn't become overwhelming is the thing. This is where grouping will be useful. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Should we include all the the easy checks that were in the previous version? (OK to leave off the harder ones?) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
OK here's a pass at one idea to "get the brain juices flowing" for editors discussion then EOWG discussion. Background: Easy Checks Prioritization Easy checks:Core checks:
Video and audio checks:Harder checks:
Maybe add later:
Not including in this iteration:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Shawn, I'm happy with your grouping & prioritisation for now. I would personally like to see readability added back in - could even be an easy check if Hemingway is accessible |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Couple of things that I would argue about:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
To clarify -- one idea above was just to have something concrete to discuss — it was not meant to be a proposal at all. I added text to hopefully make more clear. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
On reflection I'm wondering if we try and group the checks by what people will be checking, e.g.:
We might end up with a miscellaneous group at the end, but I think this type of grouping would be better than Easy, Core, Harder mixed in with Multimedia and other information-type groupings |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If all the checks can be made easy, then I fully support that idea. My big concern is how often we've heard, "this is not easy" -- from users in hands-on WAI tour sessions to recent usability testing of the prototypes. (a few notes about that in #84 ) My gut feeling is that we'll want to ease users in with some really easy checks first. And, we'll probably want to indicate some that might be harder, in respect for the audience. And, I'm quite happy to be wrong -- that we craft all checks to be pretty easy to most audiences! :-) (And even if we did re-title it, I think we still have the same purpose, audiences, use cases, etc.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I also agree that we don't need to make final decisions on grouping for a while. One idea for approach:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
< wet blanket alert > I love the concept in general … and I’m not sure how it will work when we get to the details. A few points:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
A related thing: Might we want to indicate which checks require sight? For some checks, you'll need to visually see the page to do some or all of the check. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
How many checks is too many?
Some other ideas around this...
One options is to group checks on the resource homepage. This would allow for more to be included without it seeming too overwhelming.
Grouping could be by theme or by difficulty.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions