Re: [Minutes] BAD TF teleconference on 28 October 2008

Hi, Shadi --

Sure -- there are probably a lot of ways to do this,
and I'm happy to do whatever will be most helpful.

I had assumed that the report "recommended action"
columns were in effect a description of the "after"
pages, so that would be a convenient way to see all
of what had been done. If that's true, then my
review could be finished without actually changing
any HTML code, which would be a lot easier. I'm
also thinking now that the review could be just to
the SC level, not down to techniques as I did here,
which would also be easier and faster.

I do like the "icon page" approach -- will that
completely replace the report, or just be an additional
way to look at what we've done?

When we add features, I'd recommend that we associate
them at the start with specific SCs and techniques --
if we get multiple coverage, that would be fine.

Anyway, it sounds like we'll have a good discussion
on Wednesday, and I've got a better idea of what we
need.

Talk to you soon,

Tom

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:14:15 +0100
  Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thank you for this work! Indeed the format looks good, 
>however it seems that we have a slight misunderstanding. 
>If I remember correctly, we had agreed that you will 
>evaluate the "after pages" according to WCAG 2.0 to see 
>if we have been missing anything that needs to be 
>addressed.
> 
> The next step would then be to evaluate the before pages 
>but only after we've updated them. This evaluation would 
>be used for reporting. Note however that we will 
>primarily provide icon-based reports ("in-between 
>pages"). Updating this report may only be a final step 
>depending on the time and resources available.
> 
> Would you be willing to evaluate the "after pages" 
>according to WCAG 2?
> 
> Thanks,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
> Thomas Jewett wrote:
>> Hi, Shadi and all --
>> 
>> I've taken a quick look at what it will take to upgrade
>> the BAD evaluation report to WCAG 2.0. We're certainly
>> covering as many of the success criteria as we were
>> of the 1.0 checkpoints. The work will be in 
>>documentation.
>> 
>> I've attached a snippet of HTML to show one possible
>> approach (just section 5.1 of the report). The main idea
>> here is to leave the basic format alone; I don't see any
>> reason to re-invent the wheel. I'd like to discuss this
>> in our meeting Wednesday, however, before proceeding.
>> 
>> The conformance matrix (section 4) will obviously need 
>>to
>> be changed to use success criteria instead of 
>>checkpoints.
>> I'm wondering if any of the automated tools mentioned in
>> paragraph 3.2 (Methodology) have been upgraded to check
>> WCAG 2.0? I know that at least one vendor was working on
>> this, but haven't heard from them recently.
>> 
>> One minor suggestion on the report page: in my sample,
>> I've added a bit of padding to the table cells -- this
>> makes it easier even for fully-sighted readers to use,
>> and can especially help those with low vision or
>> dyslexia. There might be similar changes we could make
>> elsewhere in the style sheet.
>> 
>> Talk to you Wednesday,
>> 
>> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 16:56:04 UTC