- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:03:50 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi, Sailesh Panchang wrote: >>I understand your argument. However, what is wrong >>with having a huge > > (raw) data source so that users can > query to generate customized reports? > > Well I think it will be more efficient if only the exceptions or the failure > instances are stored in a database for being queried. So the db will have > "the alt for img1 appears to be very long" and not that "img1 has an alt" . > Also a tool can be configured to perform certain tests during one run and > not do others. This list of tests can be stored and reported. So one > (human or machine) can look at this report and the report of failed cases > together. Good point. Maybe this should go into the EARL guide/primer document: some guidance on how to generate reports that are complete enough yet more efficient than full-output. Basically it seems that tools would ideally provide the following type of reports (provided they support that type of evaluation in the first place): 1. reports based on a group of related pages (for example a whole site, a critical path, a sub-site, or any other user defined groups) 2. reports based on a whole page (or Web resources) 3. reports based on individual parts of these resources (for example and image as discussed above) 4. full output (if the user really insists) Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra, Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), http://www.w3.org/ Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ IST WAI-TIES Project (WAI-TIES) http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ Evaluation and Repair Tools (ERT WG), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ 2004, Route des Lucioles BP93 - 06560 Sophia-Antipolis - France Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 08:03:52 UTC