W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Accessibility evaluation for "after" template page

From: Pasquale Popolizio <pasquale@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:03:42 +0100
Message-Id: <A524341E-DEEC-4CB5-9183-12ED7B88D4D3@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
To: Abou-Zahra Shadi <shadi@w3.org>, before after WS & <public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org>

Hi Shadi,
no problem ;-))

checkpoint 1.1
- images like bear, violin and brain are only in CSS background; if a  
user has CSS disabled there's no way to see them. There are no "alt"  
attributes for these images.

Maybe we could put these images in normal HTML with "alt".

checkpoint 6.1
- same problems, like above, about content images.

checkpoint 13.1
- target links about "Killer Bees" and "Onions" are not clear.
"Link text should be meaningful enough to make sense when read out of  
context -- either on its own or as part of a sequence of links."

"Slow traffic safe street leaflet" is not a Web site, like it's  
supposed to be in the text: "Please see the following websites for  
important information. Citylights take no responsibility for their  
content. For artichoke advice, call the number below."

Maybe we could write "The Killer Bees Web site", "The Onions Web  
site" and "Slow traffic safe street leaflet on the ...... Web site"

checkpoint 13.2
- there are no metadata to add semantic information.

Maybe we could use RDF to indicate the document's author, the type of  
content, etc. and/or HTML LINK element and "rel" or "rev" attributes.

checkpoint 13.3
- there is no map o table of content

There are to much links to the same internal pages (quick menu,  
navigation bar, and links in the central content).
But maybe this is subjective perception ;-)


~ pasquale

Il giorno 09/feb/06, alle ore 16:23, Shadi Abou-Zahra ha scritto:

> Hi Pasquale,
> Thank you for doing this work! I should have been a little more  
> clear, there wasn't a need for you to do such a formal report, I  
> hope it wasn't too much work.
> Anyway, your findings are interesting. Could you please clarify in  
> more detail why checkpoint 1.1, 6.1, 12.3, 13.1, and 13.2 failed?  
> Also, it would be helpful if you can provide information about the  
> instances for each violation of these checkpoints and suggestions  
> for repair.
> Thanks,
>  Shadi
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 17:05:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:50 UTC