W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2000

RE: use of meta data to keep track of checks by tools

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:10:04 -0500
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000a01bf6cc6$6b1c3b80$1aac66a7@151877>
Is it really appropriate that it be the responsibility of whoever (wherever)
is *hosting* the tool have the responsibility of tracking each file/site
that has been checked/repaired?  Does the W3C Validator keep a log of who
uses it and if they passed or not what errors they had and did they visit

I am not sure that cookies would be a good mechanism for this either.

The ability to address this feature *is* very important.  IMHO, the lack of
this option severely limits the utility of Bobby.  Probably the way a
Bobby-like program should work is with a command line option to dismiss
certain tests/checks that the page *author* is sure have been addressed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 3:35 PM
> To: Wendy A Chisholm
> Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org; w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: use of meta data to keep track of checks by tools
> This has not been discussed as requiring any resolution in the AUWG. The
> benefits mentioned are valuable, particularly the ability to generateWCAG
> conformance evaluation semi-automagically at least. In the context of
> Authoring Tool Guidelines this woul fall under the rubric of
> techniques for
> checking for accessibility, in particular across sessions.
> Charles McCN
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>   Hello,
>   On the ER IG/WG call today we discussed how to prevent an author from
>   receiving warnings for manual checks between sessions if the author has
>   already performed the manual check.  If a tool maintained
> results in meta
>   data for each file (or site) that is checked/repaired by a tool
> this would
>   be useful for a number of reasons:
>   1. generating conformance claims to WCAG
>   2. keeping track of what the user has yet to fix or has  fixed and thus
>   reducing the numbers of repeat alerts they may get for a
> particular element.
>   Have these issues been discussed in this group?  If so, please
> point us to
>   the resolutions.
>   thanks,
>   --wendy
>   --
>   wendy a chisholm
>   world wide web consortium
>   web accessibility initiative
>   madison, wi usa
>   tel: +1 608 663 6346
>   /--
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0)
> 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 10:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:29 UTC