- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:30:56 +0200
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Harvey, thanks for the comment; expect some delay from me as I'm leaving for a trip tomorrow til the end of the week and am busy today with urgent PF stuff. > I believe it necessary for the responsible person receiving a report on an > inadequate site/URL to be able to request re-evaluation and have means to > replace the original offending report from the WAI archive, once site > redesign/repair has been made. > > What happens with multiple reports on the same site that differ in assessment? > Reports may come from different reporters, or the same reporter at a later > time. Reviews may apply to a site, not just a URL, and different subsets may > occur in different reviews. I suggest linking reviews to the top-level page > where possible. For lower level pages if recognizable link them too into > the top-level page reviews. > > As URLs are not necessarily descriptive, identify reviewed pages in the > database by their titles. > > What if no problems are found (say after repair): Suggest the following > paragraph with negative connotation is inappropriate. Give a > "congratulations" message from the reviewer instead. > > "The ?reviewer? found the following accessibility problems with your page > or site. Each item is followed by a link to relevant information in the > Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (that you can find at > http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT):" > > ... > > Additional subjective comments from the ?reporter?: > > Consistency above: reviewer vs reporter > > Each report needs to include the date and time of the URL/site's downloading > in the review (that date may be earlier than the date of the submitted > report.) > > Legal ramifications of negative ratings can be serious I expect. Means for > rebuttal should be other than threatened malicious reputation soiling or > defamation of character notice from some company lawyer to W3C or the > submitting individual! > > The use of the standard W3C archiving scheme gives access sorted by date > (of email submission, not of URL evaluated), subject, or author (almost > all appear as WAI Report on http://...), > The subject choice can provide the link from the archived > version to the updated/improved versions. With common URL prefix, the more > detailed URLs of other pages will follow. > > Is there any way in the naming of those URLs in that archive to include the > asserted level of conformance? > > [I note my early attempt to get a site repaired has had no effect. I wonder > if it actually got sent?] > > Regards/Harvey Bingham > > --=====================_12755563==_.ALT > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > <html> > I believe it necessary for the responsible person receiving a report on > an<br> > inadequate site/URL to be able to request re-evaluation and have means to > <br> > replace the original offending report from the WAI archive, once site > redesign/repair has been made.<br> > <br> > What happens with multiple reports on the same site that differ in > assessment?<br> > Reports may come from different reporters, or the same reporter at a > later<br> > time. Reviews may apply to a site, not just a URL, and different subsets > may <br> > occur in different reviews. I suggest linking reviews to the top-level > page<br> > where possible. For lower level pages if recognizable link them too > into<br> > the top-level page reviews.<br> > <br> > As URLs are not necessarily descriptive, identify reviewed pages in > the<br> > database by their titles.<br> > <br> > What if no problems are found (say after repair): Suggest the following > <br> > paragraph with negative connotation is inappropriate. Give a <br> > "congratulations" message from the reviewer instead.<br> > <br> > "The ?reviewer? found the following accessibility > problems with your page <br> > or site. Each item is followed by a link to relevant > information in the <br> > Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (that you can > find at <br> > > <font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT</font></u>):"<br> > <br> > ...<br> > <br> > Additional subjective comments from the ?reporter?: > <br> > <br> > Consistency above: reviewer vs reporter<br> > <br> > Each report needs to include the date and time of the URL/site's > downloading<br> > in the review (that date may be earlier than the date of the submitted > <br> > report.)<br> > <br> > Legal ramifications of negative ratings can be serious I expect. Means > for<br> > rebuttal should be other than threatened malicious reputation soiling > or<br> > defamation of character notice from some company lawyer to W3C or > the<br> > submitting individual!<br> > <br> > The use of the standard W3C archiving scheme gives access sorted by > date<br> > (of email submission, not of URL evaluated), subject, or author (almost > <br> > all appear as WAI Report on > <a href="http:///" eudora="autourl">http://</a>...),<br> > The subject choice can provide the link from the archived<br> > version to the updated/improved versions. With common URL prefix, the > more <br> > detailed URLs of other pages will follow.<br> > <br> > Is there any way in the naming of those URLs in that archive to include > the asserted level of conformance?<br> > <br> > [I note my early attempt to get a site repaired has had no effect. I > wonder<br> > if it actually got sent?]<br> > <br> > Regards/Harvey Bingham<br> > </html> > > --=====================_12755563==_.ALT--
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 06:31:02 UTC