W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Wombat Subtext 4.1, 4.2

From: Heather Swayne <hswayne@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:19:20 -0700
Message-ID: <B7E0BEA478EBC24EBB2CF19F710760230170F175@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Jan asked some great questions, but I think we should discuss more on
Mondays conference call.

As for my 2 cents, I think having the information in help is the minimum
for meeting 4.2 but that 4.1 does require automation.  I'm also somewhat
unclear about the benefits of prompting the user to perform a manual

Heather Swayne

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:45 AM
To: Jan Richards
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Wombat Subtext 4.1, 4.2

I think that a menu option to run the check is OK (but we should talk
that further I suspect). Having the stuff in help only is definitely not

I think that providing the manual checks prompting as the WCAG checklist
sufficient (but a pretty painful interface). Any good system (there are
a few
examples on the market) will do better than that, reworking the
interface to
suit the tool, and relating it correctly to the WCAG requirements.

Where the user is required to participate in the testing the informing
done as part of that process, in general. Where there are automatic
tests it
must be by some other means...

my 2 cents worth...

Charles McCN

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Jan Richards wrote:

  Just a few questions:

  1. Must a compliant tool start the check on its own? (i.e. after a
  before publishing, on the 27th minute of editing, etc.) Or is it
  sufficient to have a "Check Accessibility" item in the menu, or even a
  "How to check accessibility" section in somewhere in the Help.

  2. Is it sufficient to provide a copy of the applicable WCAG
  document? Or would a compliant system re-work the techniques to make
  easier to manually check one after another?

  3. How is the "inform" part done? Is this implicit in the fact that
  author is the one who did the checks? Or should the tool allow the
  to record the status of each manual check as it is done and then use
  this to inform them of the problems?
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2001 22:25:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC