usability, trust, automation of WAI report tool

Judy Brewer wrote:
> Evaluation and Repair Tools IG:
>         reporting tool available for review, check it out:
>         <>

-- give an idea of how many steps there are in the process on
	the first page

-- use email callback to verify the email address of the user?
	This thing makes it (too?) easy to forge a report on behalf
	of somebody else.

-- privacy statement? You're asking for quite a bit of info.
	What are you promising *not* to do with it?

-- hmm... I expected it to be semi-automated. I'd like the
	machine to make a guess at the report. Here are some
	things that look automatable:
	-- missing ALTs
	-- check HTML validity
	-- notice that there are no imagemaps so that checkpoint is n/a
	-- determine which browser the user is using
		(which shouldn't prevent them from changing it,
		in case their doing the report with a different
		browser from the one they used to do their review)

	Ah... I guess this isn't so much of a general review
	tool as a tool to facilitate problem reporting. So I guess
	I just got the wrong impression.

-- I suggest a link from the "mobility imparied access"
	subjective rating section to some background about it;
	I don't know how to judge mobility impared access.
	The "not rated" option is good.

-- confirmation step: great!

-- in the mail message, under "The reviewer found the
	following accessibility problems" you don't say
	what the impact of, e.g. "Missing or inappropriate
	alternative text for an Image or Animation".
	Yes, they can follow the link, but you could provide
	more motivation for them to do so than just the
	fact that one reader was inconvenienced.
	I appreciate the effort to keep the report short,
	but one sentence describing (at least the most significant
	part of) the impact of the improper markup seems worthwhile.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 10:07:19 UTC