W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > May 2009

Report format

From: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:04:37 -0700
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>,public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Message-ID: <web-24432282@remus.csulb.edu>
Hi, Shadi --

If our report is going to be consistent with WCAG 2, it
seems to me that it should go something like this:

For each success criterion, first mark it applicable
or not. (We'll be able to skip the time-based media
criteria, for example.)

For each applicable SC, first identify the failures.
For example, for 1.3.1, we'll have (at least) failure
F2 - using changes in text presentation to convey
information without using the appropriate markup or
text, with the line numbers where this occurs. I'm
thinking that the *failure* is what we want in the
annotation for the inaccessible version. One beauty
of this is that we don't have to repeat any of the
background or rationale, all of which is contained
in "Understanding Guideline n.n".

Then for each failure, identify which techniques are
needed to fix the problem. For F2, we'll have (at
least) H42: Using h1-h6 to identify headings. As
we've planned, the technique will be the annotation
on the accessible page.

Looking at the complexity of the linkage between
the WCAG 2 documents, I'm guessing that there is a
database somewhere that organizes the information.
If we had access to that, it might make the report
easier to write.


Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 18:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:51 UTC