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

Re: Accessibility problems with Blackboard?

From: Jim Byrne <j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:03:35 +0000
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8BF6E87.F65D%j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk>
I had not realised that so much work had already been done in this area.
Thanks for all the links and pointers to resources.

Once I have finished my own review I will look at the existing assessment
and - if appropriate - supplement it with my own findings.

All the best,
Jim

on 21/3/02 4:19 am, Denise Wood at denise_wood@operamail.com wrote:

> ----- 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

 
-- 
Jim Byrne Project Director, The Making Connections Unit, Glasgow Caledonian
University, Glasgow G4 OBA, 0141 331 3893

Everything you need to know about publishing accessible information on the
Web.

Services: Website Accessibility Audits, Accessible Web design, Accessible
Website Management Training.

The Making Connections Unit: http://www.mcu.org.uk/
Scottish Disability Information Mailing list:
http://www.mcu.org.uk/mailinglists/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 06:04:06 GMT

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