W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-rc@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE:Reporting of accessibility problems

From: David Clark <dmclark@cast.org>
Date: 10 Mar 98 09:14:04 -0500
To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
CC: "w3c-wai-rc@w3.org" <w3c-wai-rc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <19980310091231.0a60d809.in@CASTSERVER1.cast.org>
         Reply to:   RE:Reporting of accessibility problems

Thanks for the summary, I'll be interested to hear how other people respond.

I think one of the other issues  to raise is that not all of the guidelines are readily quantifiable by a computer program.

Also, we are abandoning the four star rating system in favor of pass/fail based on the analogous argument: "1 step or 100 steps, it's still inaccessible."

David Clark
CAST, Inc.
 On 3/9/98, Harvey Bingham wrote:
>Summary: How should the WAI accessibility guidelines be integrated >into >accessibility analysis and reporting tools like Bobby.
>The WAI Accessibility guidelines, with Required and Recommended >problem >severity, should be the basis for a measure of URL accessibility. >What measure should we recommend:
>1. Should any failing of a Required guideline in the content of a URL >   report that URL as an accessibility failure?
>2. Should any failing of a Recommended guideline report a warning?
>3. Should summary counts of total failings and warnings be in the report?
>4. Should further breakdown of summary counts be by kind?
>Current Bobby uses an opaque algorithm to rank a URL as 1 to 4 stars. >Most results are either 1 star (bad) or 4 stars (assertedly accessible).
> >Sites that generate frame content (by script, applet, or activeX-control)
>may have nothing in the body for Bobby to analyze, so may get 4 stars, >even though they may be totally inaccessible.
>5. Should the amount of accessible material be factored into the report?
>6. Is there a tactful way to make such reports to sites other than your >own?
>My prior attempts at reporting Bobby results to different companies have >been minimally effective, even though I provided summaries of the >problems
>encountered, encouraged Bobby use, and showed how to use it: >
>*   Two passes three months apart over the home pages of about 50 >SGML >    Open member companies (showing most had problems, and a trend >for >    more getting worse than getting better, as their web pages evolved >    into more layout-intensive graphics, frames, imagemaps, and layout >    tables.)
>*   One pass over the home pages of all the companies supporting the >Microsoft
>    Content Data Format. I sent this to key players at Microsoft for further
>    distribution. No one at Microsoft acknowledged that combined report.
>Josh Krieger says he will soon be revising Bobby analysis to recognize >the >problems identified in the accessibility guidelines.
>The questions I pose above should help with that new Bobby analysis.
>Regards/Harvey Bingham
>RFC822 header
>From w3c-wai-rc-request@w3.org Mon Mar 09 23:13:55 1998
>Received: by CASTSERVER1.cast.org from localhost
>    (router,QMProSrv V2.5); Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:13:55 -0500
>Received: by CASTSERVER1.cast.org from www19.w3.org
>    ( daemon; unverified,QMProSrv V2.5); Mon, 09 Mar >1998 23:13:54 -0500
>Received: by www19.w3.org (8.8.5/8.6.12) id XAA20250; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 >23:13:00 -0500 (EST)
>Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:13:00 -0500 (EST)
>Resent-Message-Id: <199803100413.XAA20250@www19.w3.org>
>Message-Id: <>
>X-Sender: bingham@pop.tiac.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 18:57:52 -0500
>To: <w3c-wai-rc@w3.org>
>From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: Reporting of accessibility problems
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-rc@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-rc@w3.org> archive/latest/4
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-rc@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-rc-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-rc-request@w3.org
>Precedence: list
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 1998 09:12:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:23 UTC