- From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:25:12 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
At 17:18 1998/10/13 -0400, Ian wrote: >Hello, > >Today I mentioned an idea for a kind of accessibility checklist >that could be offered by the Tool to the Author. The checklist >would present key topics of accessibility (identified by these >guidelines) and indicate which ones the author had satisfied through >some mechanism (e.g., a check mark). Those that were not yet satisfied >would be unchecked. For those not yet satisfied, the Author >could follow links to information about how to satisfy them. > Also a chain of links to each detected problem of that kind. >The idea here is to provide a mechanism that: > >1) Isn't a spell-check-like mechanism for highlighting > accessibility problems in the document body (this is also useful, > but a separate mechanism). The checks could be "calculated" > after the Author has finished an editing session. > >2) Gives Authors an introduction to accessibility topics (a checklist > of 10 or so might even stick in people's minds). > The WAI summary business card we're currently finalizing has 9 items on it. >3) Gives Authors a starting point to finding more info about topics > >4) Gives positive feedback ("You *have* done a good job for these >topics"). > I note that recent Bobby 3.0 admits that some accessibility issues require human judgement. Should we handle such subjective issues by raising them and having the author assert fulfillment? > > - Ian > >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) >Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 >http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 1998 00:48:28 UTC