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

Web Accessibility Report Tool

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:23:57 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990914113341.02647e20@pop.tiac.net>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
I believe it necessary for the responsible person receiving a report on an
inadequate site/URL to be able to request re-evaluation and have means to
replace the original offending report from the WAI archive, once site 
redesign/repair has been made.

What happens with multiple reports on the same site that differ in assessment?
Reports may come from different reporters, or the same reporter at a later
time. Reviews may apply to a site, not just a URL, and different subsets may
occur in different reviews. I suggest linking reviews to the top-level page
where possible. For lower level pages if recognizable link them too into
the top-level page reviews.

As URLs are not necessarily descriptive, identify reviewed pages in the
database by their titles.

What if no problems are found (say after repair): Suggest the following
paragraph with negative connotation is inappropriate. Give a
"congratulations" message from the reviewer instead.

     "The ?reviewer? found the following accessibility problems with your page
     or site. Each item is followed by a link to relevant information in the
     Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (that you can find at
     http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT):"

     ...

     Additional subjective comments from the ?reporter?:

Consistency above: reviewer vs reporter

Each report needs to include the date and time of the URL/site's downloading
in the review (that date may be earlier than the date of the submitted
report.)

Legal ramifications of negative ratings can be serious I expect. Means for
rebuttal should be other than threatened malicious reputation soiling or
defamation of character notice from some company lawyer to W3C or the
submitting individual!

The use of the standard W3C archiving scheme gives access sorted by date
(of email submission, not of URL evaluated), subject, or author (almost
all appear as WAI Report on http://...),
The subject choice can provide the link from the archived
version to the updated/improved versions. With common URL prefix, the more
detailed URLs of other pages will follow.

Is there any way in the naming of those URLs in that archive to include the 
asserted level of conformance?

[I note my early attempt to get a site repaired has had no effect. I wonder
if it actually got sent?]

Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 1999 12:23:12 GMT

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