Re: Official WAI Report Form

> >  - general idea of W3C/WAI providing such a report, good or bad,
> >    useful or useless ?
> The usefulness will be limited unless we can make it a verb in the
> browser.  That is to say, the user does not have to handle the URL
> of the offending page.  The browser should capture the URL of the
> current page when the user invokes the "write a message" function and
> provide it automatically to whatever else happens.

It's at cut&paste distance, it can't be that hard.

I've been thinking about using a cookie on the form to save the
reporter the retype of name/email.

> The usefulness will be greater if the tool applies analysis to
> the site the user complains about, and does not just pass through
> what the user can say.

You mean, like adding a bobby check no matter what.
I think that's what Harvey what referring too as well.
Fine with me.

> There is already a "write a comment to the author" function in
> Lynx.  Lynx users tend to be activist, so this is a potentially
> effective linkage if we can make the connection there.

You mean have Lynx add a "write a comment to the author using the WAI
form" ? Why not.

They might have some good heuristics to find the author too.

> Chuck Opperman in the Boston meeting said that if someone would
> implement the "write a letter of complaint" function in Visual
> Basic that he would ensure it shipped with every copy of IE.

Sure, that's another way to distributing the form. I'm all for it.
> >  - what to do with the data: public or not, at what stage ? (current
> >    model suggest that the data is not public right away but can if
> >    nothing is done - with no definition of "nothing")
> Nothing should go public unless manually reviewed by a trained
> team member. 

Worthwhile, but I keep wondering what will happen if we get thousands
of report hit...

> [That's little-t team, not W3C Team.]  I would like
> to see W3C/WAI positioned as something of a fact-finder and
> mediator.  In other words, perform a service which we can offer
> to webmasters as "We can help you understand and respond to
> complaints" as much as we offer to people with disabilities that
> "We can help you get corrective action from webmasters."

I like that wording.
> By the way, the best solution would be if the W3C can decide to
> offer this kind of service as regards usage of Web standards in
> general, not just use of accessible web design practices.

You know, I often look at WAI as a trial of what W3C might want to do
later on a larger scale (education, best practices, external funding
programs, tools, etc) :-) 
> >  - how to manage the liability risk for W3C (spammer, angry/insulting
> >    reporters, few mistakes, plain wrong report, etc) 
> Sometimes I think that reports should be eyeballed before they go
> out on W3C letterhead, as it were.

I'm leaning toward the no-checking outgoing-message scenario.

>  Another tack is not to put
> the W3C name on the first mail to the alleged offender but rather
> to cc: complaintsW3.ORG .  Make it clear that the W3C knows about
> the complaint and implicitly should be copied on responses.

The From header will come from, so I don't see any reason for
hidding us in the letter.
> >  - maintenance of data: when to delete entries, forecast of usage (is
> >    human tracking of reports possible?)
> Usage should be managed.  Use controlled populations of alpha and
> beta testers.

You mean reporter testers.

>  If the process is working, figure out how to staff
> the necessary manual review tasks.  We can tap advocacy organizations
> for the latter; they can be trained on the tools and guidelines and
> check for off-the-wall complaints.

As I mentioned in my previous message, I would prefer to have a solid
explanation/help document for reporter to use, even saying "you need
to read that before using this form" in licencese language ("I Accept" 

I mostly want to deliver a tool (this report) that roll on its own
without much resource thereafter.
> >  - how to subset the Page Author guidelines for reference from this form?
> Link key points to the web-present guidelines.  Don't subset.

Yes, and I agree with defining fix anchors in GL.

> >  - need to refine the outgoing message wording and identify how many
> >    translation to provide ? 
> It's pretty good.
> Where it says "this database is not presently public" it should
> rather say "the record of this complaint is not presently public."

> Visibility should be controlled on a case-by-case basis, not the
> whole database as a unit.

> Other design details:
> The individual checkoffs are a bit too technical.  I would
> suggest that we put the free text summary of the problem first
> and the "check all that apply" boxes below.  Or don't ask the
> complainant for any discrete checkoffs and us a Bobby or
> WebMetrics report to enumerate the technical description of the
> problem.
I need to think more about Bobby integration.

> Oh, by the way: having the tool help in determining who the
> complaint email goes to should be always on or at least default
> to on.  Sniffing out the place to send complaints is one of the
> areas where people could use help and a tool could do useful
> stuff.  Subscribe to Thomas's Register.  Know who to escalate to
> in the business sponsoring the website.  This is a key piece of
> the program.

OK for changing the default.

What is Thomas's Register ?

William mentioned that we could also add pointer to ADA and other
regulation when sending email about .gov and .edu sites. 

Received on Thursday, 13 August 1998 11:59:02 UTC