W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [Minutes] BAD TF teleconference on 28 October 2008

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:05:21 +0100
Message-ID: <49193CC1.5070301@w3.org>
To: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
CC: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org

Hi Tom,

Indeed, I don't think we would need to change much code as accessibility 
barriers and repairs will mostly stay the same. As you say, we will only 
need to change the mapping of the requirements to WCAG 2.0 (and complete 
some of the missing descriptions).

However, it appears that the report is quite lengthy and maybe a little 
too cumbersome for people who are not used to such reporting formats. 
This includes developers who are new to Web accessibility, which is one 
of our target audiences. This is why we thought of the icon-based report 
as a "lower entry-level" reporting format for such audiences.

This report could continue to complement or extend the Demo, and there 
are no plans for dropping it. It is however, according to our previous 
discussions, something to look at a later stage.


Thomas Jewett wrote:
> Hi, Shadi --
> Sure -- there are probably a lot of ways to do this,
> and I'm happy to do whatever will be most helpful.
> I had assumed that the report "recommended action"
> columns were in effect a description of the "after"
> pages, so that would be a convenient way to see all
> of what had been done. If that's true, then my
> review could be finished without actually changing
> any HTML code, which would be a lot easier. I'm
> also thinking now that the review could be just to
> the SC level, not down to techniques as I did here,
> which would also be easier and faster.
> I do like the "icon page" approach -- will that
> completely replace the report, or just be an additional
> way to look at what we've done?
> When we add features, I'd recommend that we associate
> them at the start with specific SCs and techniques --
> if we get multiple coverage, that would be fine.
> Anyway, it sounds like we'll have a good discussion
> on Wednesday, and I've got a better idea of what we
> need.
> Talk to you soon,
> Tom
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:14:15 +0100
>  Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> Thank you for this work! Indeed the format looks good, however it 
>> seems that we have a slight misunderstanding. If I remember correctly, 
>> we had agreed that you will evaluate the "after pages" according to 
>> WCAG 2.0 to see if we have been missing anything that needs to be 
>> addressed.
>> The next step would then be to evaluate the before pages but only 
>> after we've updated them. This evaluation would be used for reporting. 
>> Note however that we will primarily provide icon-based reports 
>> ("in-between pages"). Updating this report may only be a final step 
>> depending on the time and resources available.
>> Would you be willing to evaluate the "after pages" according to WCAG 2?
>> Thanks,
>>   Shadi
>> Thomas Jewett wrote:
>>> Hi, Shadi and all --
>>> I've taken a quick look at what it will take to upgrade
>>> the BAD evaluation report to WCAG 2.0. We're certainly
>>> covering as many of the success criteria as we were
>>> of the 1.0 checkpoints. The work will be in documentation.
>>> I've attached a snippet of HTML to show one possible
>>> approach (just section 5.1 of the report). The main idea
>>> here is to leave the basic format alone; I don't see any
>>> reason to re-invent the wheel. I'd like to discuss this
>>> in our meeting Wednesday, however, before proceeding.
>>> The conformance matrix (section 4) will obviously need to
>>> be changed to use success criteria instead of checkpoints.
>>> I'm wondering if any of the automated tools mentioned in
>>> paragraph 3.2 (Methodology) have been upgraded to check
>>> WCAG 2.0? I know that at least one vendor was working on
>>> this, but haven't heard from them recently.
>>> One minor suggestion on the report page: in my sample,
>>> I've added a bit of padding to the table cells -- this
>>> makes it easier even for fully-sighted readers to use,
>>> and can especially help those with low vision or
>>> dyslexia. There might be similar changes we could make
>>> elsewhere in the style sheet.
>>> Talk to you Wednesday,
>>> Tom
>> -- 
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 08:05:59 UTC

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