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

Re: Web Accessibility Report Tool

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:30:56 +0200
Message-Id: <199909151030.MAA08050@www4.inria.fr>
To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

Harvey, thanks for the comment; expect some delay from me as I'm
leaving for a trip tomorrow til the end of the week and am busy today
with urgent PF stuff.


> 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
> 
> --=====================_12755563==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> <html>
> I believe it necessary for the responsible person receiving a report on
> an<br>
> inadequate site/URL to be able to request re-evaluation and have means to
> <br>
> replace the original offending report from the WAI archive, once site
> redesign/repair has been made.<br>
> <br>
> What happens with multiple reports on the same site that differ in
> assessment?<br>
> Reports may come from different reporters, or the same reporter at a
> later<br>
> time. Reviews may apply to a site, not just a URL, and different subsets
> may <br>
> occur in different reviews. I suggest linking reviews to the top-level
> page<br>
> where possible. For lower level pages if recognizable link them too
> into<br>
> the top-level page reviews.<br>
> <br>
> As URLs are not necessarily descriptive, identify reviewed pages in
> the<br>
> database by their titles.<br>
> <br>
> What if no problems are found (say after repair): Suggest the following
> <br>
> paragraph with negative connotation is inappropriate. Give a <br>
> &quot;congratulations&quot; message from the reviewer instead.<br>
> <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;The ?reviewer? found the following accessibility
> problems with your page <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or site. Each item is followed by a link to relevant
> information in the <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (that you can
> find at <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> <font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT</font></u>):&quot;<br>
> <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ...<br>
> <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional subjective comments from the ?reporter?:
> <br>
> <br>
> Consistency above: reviewer vs reporter<br>
> <br>
> Each report needs to include the date and time of the URL/site's
> downloading<br>
> in the review (that date may be earlier than the date of the submitted
> <br>
> report.)<br>
> <br>
> Legal ramifications of negative ratings can be serious I expect. Means
> for<br>
> rebuttal should be other than threatened malicious reputation soiling
> or<br>
> defamation of character notice from some company lawyer to W3C or
> the<br>
> submitting individual!<br>
> <br>
> The use of the standard W3C archiving scheme gives access sorted by
> date<br>
> (of email submission, not of URL evaluated), subject, or author (almost
> <br>
> all appear as WAI Report on
> <a href="http:///" eudora="autourl">http://</a>...),<br>
> The subject choice can provide the link from the archived<br>
> version to the updated/improved versions. With common URL prefix, the
> more <br>
> detailed URLs of other pages will follow.<br>
> <br>
> Is there any way in the naming of those URLs in that archive to include
> the asserted level of conformance?<br>
> <br>
> [I note my early attempt to get a site repaired has had no effect. I
> wonder<br>
> if it actually got sent?]<br>
> <br>
> Regards/Harvey Bingham<br>
> </html>
> 
> --=====================_12755563==_.ALT--
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 06:31:02 GMT

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