- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:59:18 +0200
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> > - 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 @w3.org, 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" etc). 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." done > 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