W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Bulk use of accessibility checkers and other auditing tool

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <chitchcock@cast.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108030954510.4155-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hi Brian,

there are checkers that are starting to offer customisation features. The
ones I know are either ones that cst money, or require other tools that cost
money.

But finally, yes, there are tools producing output in a machine readable
format, there is work in the ERT group on a project called EARL (Evaluation
and Report Language) which is an RDF vocabulary specially designed for
reporting results like Bobby in machine readable format. And Josh Krieger and
CHris Ridpath (noted for Bobby and A-prompt respectively) have just  produced
a tool that outputs EARL.

More information is probably most easily available from the EARL homepage
http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl for people intersted in the details, or from
the ER group's mailing list archives - look for example at the thread
beginning at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2001Jul/0055

cheers

Charles

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Brian Kelly wrote:

  Has anyone provided standard definitions for what constitutes a page,
  and what action user-agent should take when such strange things happen?
  Are any auditing tools providing customisation over the actions they
  will take?

  Finally are any of the Web sites which provide such Web analysis
  features looking at going down the "Web service" route, and providing
  output in a machine understandable format - so that the results can be
  more easily post-processed?
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 10:05:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT