- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:15:11 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> -- give an idea of how many steps there are in the process on > the first page OK, changed "this step by step form" in "this four-step form" in the intro text. > -- 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. Good idea, plus check the email address of the author, while we're there, to reduce the bounces. > -- privacy statement? You're asking for quite a bit of info. > What are you promising *not* to do with it? Sure. Where should it be ? off the first page or when we ask stuff (step 3 more likely). > -- 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. well, there is Bobby for that, this is more human oriented. > -- 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. that's the idea, you don't have a problem, you don't report anything. > -- 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. I really want the report to be as compact as possible. What others think ?
Received on Thursday, 2 September 1999 08:15:17 UTC