Comments on report tool

First, I've changed the tool so that it asks comment to be sent to the 
ER IG list, rather than just to me, so that people can discuss the
issues as they come in, not waiting for me (always trying to remove

So far I count 6 comments:

> From: "Marti" <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET> 
> ...
> If I received a form like this as a webmaster I might assume any unchecked
> items were okay, when the person sending it was only reporting on one or two
> things they observed. Could lead to a lot of confusion.

I think the "Other comments" field can be used to indicate that kind
of things (ala: "I only reported this and that but there seems to be
more problems on this site").

> From: David Poehlman <>
> ...
> one thing I'd suggest and that is that when the message is generated,
> instead of ending it with the word tool perhaps tool development
> team.  I'm not sure I'd like to think I got a message from a tool but

After discussing with Judy and the WAI staff, I changed it to be 

From <reporter-name or reporter-email or "anonymous"> (whatever is available)
using the W3C WAI Accessibility Initiative Report Tool.

> From: "Leonard R. Kasday" <>
> ...
> 1. Had trouble answering "what browser" cause I used 2 browsers, lynx to
> get idea of accessibility, and netscape to see what I was missing.

I could modify the cgi logic so that one can both select a browser in
the menu and enter a browser in the Other field, and that both of them 
appear in the message.
I'm not sure that's worth the trouble ?
> 2. would have like a way to flag what major problem was.

I think like for issue one above, the "Other comments" field can be
use to emphasize particular aspects.
You guess it: I'm reluctant to complicate the UI of this form.
> 3. Page makes heavy use of tables to format text. OK if linearized, but
> hard to read if not linearized.  I realize this is only priority 3.
> However, some people still think it's a signficicant problem, i.e. disagree
> with w3 ratings.  So perhaps add as checkpoint.  Person could also flag if
> major per commment 2.

What others think ?
This way we might get some end-user input as to what is the
significance of this problem.
> From:
> ...
>  Another comment I have is to "add" to the form a check box on
>  whether or not I want the web site added to the "database" .  The
>  reason is I'm testing the use of the tool and may be evaluating a
>  bogus site, and/or evaluating a real site, but really testing the
>  tool and not doing a through eval of the site.  I am also doing real
>  evals of some sites and would want them added to the database even
>  though the tool is in beta...  

I'm not in favor of that.

If you want to test the tool, you just stop at Step4 and do not hit
"Send Message". You basically see what the message will be.
(If you really want to see what messages looks like, you can check the

Also, I don't want to send unarchived messages on behalf of W3C...

Received on Tuesday, 24 August 1999 09:54:43 UTC