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: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:04:49 +0200
Message-Id: <199909281504.RAA18727@www4.inria.fr>
To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
cc: 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.

That's delicate. The mailing list wai-report@w3.org is the mean by 
which webmasters can request and comment on anything.

As far as removing/changing content as the other end of a public URL, I
think this is a no-no. People should count on a more recent review to
replace an older one.

> 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.

If the difference is worth discussing why it's there, then there's the 
list for that.

> 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.

I'm not sure I get the rationales for that. A lower page contains the
URL of the top page in it, so to save on byte in the report, if we only
want to include one, the lower it should be.

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

Good point. Will do.

 
> 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.

Hum, it's unclear what we should do here.  Some people are actually
using the tool today to just enter the archive with a "no problem"
credit.
To me, the tool is mostly to report problem not to report
goodies. We're working on a gallery for that.

I'm afraid if we make the tool better adapted to delivering "no
problem" message, it will be even more abused.
 
What others think ?

> Consistency above: reviewer vs reporter

OK, will change.
 
> 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.)

Already in my todo has improvement.
 
> Is there any way in the naming of those URLs in that archive to include the 
> asserted level of conformance?

Can you explain what you mean ?
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 1999 11:05:01 GMT

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