W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > August 1999

usability, trust, automation of WAI report tool

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:59:03 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990826105901.00fec820@pop3.concentric.net>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
This is copy of mail to wai-ig which I'm posting here just to have all
email relevant to our group here in one place.

Or is there a better way to keep track of the wai-ig mail?  A problem with
this method is that it lists me as author rather than the true author.

Len


>Return-Path: <w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org>
>Errors-To: <w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org>
>Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Resent-Message-Id: <199908261407.KAA15998@www19.w3.org>
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:07:11 -0500
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>References: <3.0.5.32.19990826085541.00f86df0@localhost>
>Subject: usability, trust, automation of WAI report tool
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> archive/latest/556
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>
>Judy Brewer wrote:
>[...]
>> Evaluation and Repair Tools IG:
>>         reporting tool available for review, check it out:
>>         <http://www.w3.org/WAI/Report>
>
>-- give an idea of how many steps there are in the process on
>	the first page
>
>-- use email callback to verify the email address of the user?
>	This thing makes it (too?) easy to forge a report on behalf
>	of somebody else.
>
>-- privacy statement? You're asking for quite a bit of info.
>	What are you promising *not* to do with it?
>
>-- hmm... I expected it to be semi-automated. I'd like the
>	machine to make a guess at the report. Here are some
>	things that look automatable:
>	-- missing ALTs
>	-- check HTML validity
>	-- notice that there are no imagemaps so that checkpoint is n/a
>	-- determine which browser the user is using
>		(which shouldn't prevent them from changing it,
>		in case their doing the report with a different
>		browser from the one they used to do their review)
>
>	Ah... I guess this isn't so much of a general review
>	tool as a tool to facilitate problem reporting. So I guess
>	I just got the wrong impression.
>
>-- I suggest a link from the "mobility imparied access"
>	subjective rating section to some background about it;
>	I don't know how to judge mobility impared access.
>	The "not rated" option is good.
>
>-- confirmation step: great!
>
>-- in the mail message, under "The reviewer found the
>	following accessibility problems" you don't say
>	what the impact of, e.g. "Missing or inappropriate
>	alternative text for an Image or Animation".
>	Yes, they can follow the link, but you could provide
>	more motivation for them to do so than just the
>	fact that one reader was inconvenienced.
>	I appreciate the effort to keep the report short,
>	but one sentence describing (at least the most significant
>	part of) the impact of the improper markup seems worthwhile.
>
>
>-- 
>Dan Connolly, W3C
>http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
-------
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering
Temple University

Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
kasday@acm.org        
(215) 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 10:56:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:33 GMT