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: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:24:39 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0002011222470.21037-100000@tux.w3.org>
In the context of an authoring tool I think it is extremely
appropriate. Tools like Word keep large amounts of information about documets
across editing sessions.

In the case of an ER tool it is likely to be more difficult (cookies are
indded a good approach) butit is still very valuable as a service to the
author.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote:

  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
  again?
  
  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
  http://www.w3.org/WAI
  21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia 
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 12:24:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:34 GMT