W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Fwd: reporting scheme Re: conformance

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 18:10:04 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: W3C Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

         I use Front Page 97 -- haven't upgraded to 2000 yet, waiting to 
see if there's a 2002 to get more in ... sounds like that is likely.
Yes, when the tools are available, it makes more sense to ask for it ...

         I don't know how big the audience is for Bobby .... I see very few 
pages outside the "Disability Community" that display the Bobby  logo. I've 
never heard of, or seen evidence of, the others you mentioned. I lost 
interest in Bobby when I ran a simple all-text page through it and it 
passed and the logo would have implied the page was accessible to all major 
groups of people, and, sadly, we know it isn't ... Also, I worked one of my 
Links pages through Bobby, but despite the fact that it is usable to those 
with speech readers who I asked to try it, it wouldn't pass Bobby because 
it uses a table to associate picture and text into a single presentation. 
<e.g.  http://www.geocities.com/apembert45/History > Plus it's on a free 
web space site, which carries an ad, and I can't label the ad graphic - it 
comes as it comes.

         In the case of a team working on a site, I would presume they 
would decide among themselves how to document who is doing or has done what 
.... setting a worldwide spec for communication among an indigenous team 
seems a bit odd ...

         I probably see it as a bigger job to document a bunch of specs 
into each page, than you do. Does this need to be done on a per site or a 
per page basis? If per page, it would be a lengthy task for me to do it to 
just my school pages, let alone my personal pages ... much more work than 
going thru them all and cleaning up all the missing alt tags from updates 
<as soon as a version of Front Page comes out that prompts you to insert 
the text when you insert the graphic, I'll part with the money even if I 
have to skip lunch for two weeks!  It's not on Front Page 2000. > <If Bobby 
was really useful to it's audience, it would allow you to edit your page as 
you run through it, so it could be used to fix missing alt tags!>  <One of 
the "accessibility" tools I've tried warns you that images add bandwidth 
and are sometimes annoying to users, but it tells you that from the first 
image you use.... bad, bad, bad ... don't remember where that was ...>

         In a two level scheme, targeted audience vs public audience, those 
who build sites for targeted audiences would need to meet minimum 
guidelines to accommodate all hardware, plus whatever they need to do to 
accommodate any users whose needs aren't met by that much. The example of 
the online course with one registered student with needs for a learning 
disability perhaps combined with low vision. These are specific needs, and 
giving "credit" to meeting the needs of your target audience doesn't make 
sense. The site is still substantially at the Minimum level. Meeting all 
needs would be the other level. There may be guidelines that are unique to 
certain types of combined disabilities that would be in neither level. 
These would be provided for addition at either the minimum of full level to 
meet the needs of known users of the site. (I may be slipping over to 
writing law here ...) perhaps with the caveat that if a user notifies a 
site that his/her needs can be met by XYZ, the author would have some 
reasonable amount of time to include the needs (documentation, of 

>--- Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > The scenario being outlined requires the development
> > of some tools. These are
> > being developed right now and are avialable as new
> > commercial products for
> > systems such as FrontPage, Websphere and Dreamweaver
> > - widely deployed
> > software used by lots of "ordinary folks".
> >
> > It also requires that people use the new software,
> > which as we know takes
> > time.
> >
> > And finally it requires that the way we code the
> > guidelines themselves (the
> > pointy brackets that nobody sees) is what we would
> > ned to do to make them
> > usefl for our own needs. It doesn't take time to do
> > - any time at all. You
> > and I have obviously taken some time in discussing
> > whether it is useful to do
> > so, and that is longer than it takes me to actually
> > make it happen (at least
> > as far as what needs to be done by WCAG).
> >
> > Are you suggesting that the other scenarios outlined
> > at
> >
> > ; people who
> > are developing content and need to solve a problem
> > for a particular person or
> > group urgently; authoring tools such as the ones
> > mentioned above; evaluation
> > tools such as Bobby, prompt, taw, schematron, the
> > Wave, and others don't have
> > an audience, or that I am wrong in assuming that
> > they would use tools which
> > give more than a "pass/fail" answer for two or three
> > levels of conformance?
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >   Charles,
> > [snip]
> >       Yes, I have said it would be nice if folks
> > could
> >   find the pages that meet their needs, but from
> > what
> >   I've seen of the reporting schemes, this
> > information
> >   will not be accessible to the ordinary user.
> > Therefore
> >   the reporting schemes would not satisfy the need
> > for
> >   users to be able to find content that suits their
> >   needs. Again, I see no audience for the reporting
> >   scheme and it seems a waste of time. Maybe it
> > could go
> >   in the "it would be nice if you did it" category,
> > or
> >   in the "when user agents can use it" category.
> >   Remember that the reporting scheme needs to be
> > fully
> >   accessible, usable, and understandable, if it is
> > ever
> >   to be used by users.
> >
> >
>Anne Pemberton
>Computer Teacher
>Southside Elementary School
>Dinwiddie, VA, USA 23894
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.

Anne Pemberton

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:12:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC