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

Re: usability, trust, automation of WAI report tool

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:15:11 +0200
Message-Id: <199909021215.OAA06386@www4.inria.fr>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

> -- give an idea of how many steps there are in the process on
> 	the first page

OK, changed "this step by step form" in "this four-step form" in the
intro text.
 
> -- 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.

Good idea, plus check the email address of the author, while we're
there, to reduce the bounces.
 
> -- privacy statement? You're asking for quite a bit of info.
> 	What are you promising *not* to do with it?

Sure. Where should it be ? off the first page or when we ask stuff
(step 3 more likely).
 
> -- 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.

well, there is Bobby for that, this is more human oriented.
 
> -- 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.

that's the idea, you don't have a problem, you don't report anything.
 
> -- 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.
 
I really want the report to be as compact as possible.
What others think ?
Received on Thursday, 2 September 1999 08:15:17 GMT

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