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

draft report format for discussion (was Re: Report format)

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:09:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4A07DD2B.9020306@w3.org>
To: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
CC: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Hi Tom, all,

Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report>

Please find a draft report format for discussion. This is only a static 
mockup so none of the show/hide functions work. I hope it gives the 
basic idea:
  - we list conformance of the Demo to individual Success Criteria
  - for each of these, the user can zoom into the Techniques-level
  - there will be some "expand-all" functionality (and other toggles)

What do people think of this approach?


Note: for many SCs (like 1.1.1) there will be probably be a looong list 
of related Failures and Techniques (probably several ones for each Demo 
page). Any ideas how we could manage this? I'm thinking of another layer 
of show/hide details (this time for the actual locations). Thoughts?

Regards,
   Shadi


Thomas Jewett wrote:
> Sounds good -- I think that assumptions will fit
> well in the introductory part of the report, with
> SCs/failures/techniques as the main section.
> 
> One reason that I separated out Failures is that
> they have their own checks, which are essentially
> the reverse of the Techniques checks although
> less specific. I think this is a bit of overkill
> in the document, but again I'm trying to illustrate
> use of the standard (as written) to the max extent
> possible.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom
> 
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 09:00:37 +0200
>  Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I'm not sure that it is only the Failures that we want to list to show 
>> that a Success Criterion has not been met. We can also show Techniques 
>> that have not been implemented, so that conformance with the Success 
>> Criterion could not be demonstrated. Having said that, it seems that 
>> we we'll need to clearly state the assumptions under which the 
>> evaluation took place (including mentioning Accessibility Supported 
>> Technologies).
>>
>> I'll work on a draft format based on your input below for discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Shadi
>>
>> ...
> 
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 08:09:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 May 2009 08:09:48 GMT