Re: Tracking Manual Checks

OK, there is no reqwuirement in ATAG that the information is tracked
carefully, or is particularly helpful. And the requirement is P3.

At that level of priority, the techniques become more like what people are
actually going to do. In particular, the best technique for providing a
summary is to track what has been done, including author-checked stuff (ATAG
is pretty explicit that there are requirements for author-checking in some
cases. In fact the minimum requirement is just to ask the author to check

The best technique would be to use an interoperable language for knowing this
stuff. One option is to consider taking on the work of developing such a
language as a W3C Recommendation - after all, it is a fairly small piece of
technical work by comparison to things like SMIL. It just needs

Alternatively, maybe we should just shoot for implementation, make a Note,
and then think about where to go...


On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, William Loughborough wrote:

  At 11:56 AM 1/29/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status.

  Not really a "summary" in this case. A means of tracking which checks
  (especially manual ones) the author asserts having performed, the results
  of said checks, whether anything has changed that requires their being
  re-performed,  etc.

  Then, of course, the summary will be  made discoverable by the handy-dandy
  "outside agent".


Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 00:17:48 UTC