W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Accessibility problems with Blackboard?

From: Denise Wood <denise_wood@operamail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:19:39 +0800
Message-ID: <20020321041939.29742.qmail@operamail.com>
To: <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:09:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Denise Wood <denise_wood@operamail.com>
Subject: RE: Accessibility problems with Blackboard?


> Hi,
> 
> actual assessment of stuff, or compiling information and publishing it,
> sounds like a good idea nearly all the time. PLease note that in the case of
> "learning support systems", or "courseware", or "tools that let you do the
> things that the web lets you do, but all come in one box and get sold to
> universities along with support" there are reviews done by the Authoring Tool
> Accessibility Guidelines group http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU as part of the
> implementation reviews they do - this is an important group of authoring
> tools.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals


Thanks for this Charles. I think it may be best to complement the work of the Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines group. We could do this in the following ways:
1. Contributing to the existing reviews already completed by the group (ie Blackboard 5.5, Domino 5.02a, Prometheus 5.08 and WebCT 3.6) by sending further information, comments etc to the reviewer for inclusion when the reviews are updated.
2. Suggesting courseware that needs to be reviewed and is not yet included on the list. There are procedures outlined on the site about how to go about this. However, Charles, what is not clear, is when the reviews are completed. I note there are several packages listed for review but no review links exist. I presume that means a review has not yet been completed? At the moment the reviews are limited in so far as only four products have been reviewed. 
3. Submitting reviews (using the draft template document which can be supplied)of courseware not yet listed or reviewed.

Al, I think this would provide the most efficient means for ensuring consistency in the reviews, adding to the limited list of reviewed packages currently on the site and providing a more effective means for dissemination of the findings. Are there any volunteers to contribute to existing reviews based on experiences using the courseware, suggesting additional courseware for review and conducting reviews of courseware not yet evaluated by the Working group?

BTW, the ATAG pages provide a link to Ocotillo Central which lists the URLs of reviews of many courseware applications: http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ocotillo/courseware/compare.html
-- 


Dr Denise L Wood

Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
and EASI online instructor 
University of South Australia
CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
Ph:  (61 8) 8302 2167
Fax: (61 8) 8302 2363 
Mob: (0413 648 260)

Email:Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au or Denise@easi.cc 
	 
WWW: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood
and at EASI: http://easi.cc/workshops/advwbsyl.htm


_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/

Powered by Outblaze
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 23:40:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:01 GMT