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

Re: usability, trust, automation of WAI report tool

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:51:49 +0200
Message-Id: <199908271251.OAA10915@www4.inria.fr>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
cc: 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.

?
Dan's email was to er-ig
 
> 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.

The report now says to report to erig.

> 
> 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 Friday, 27 August 1999 08:51:55 GMT

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