- From: Jukka Korpela <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:40:09 +0300
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Nick Kew wrote: > - - should I still do more to > enhance the accessibility of the reports themselves? Yes. But, Nick, is it really productive to have discussion on four fora, even if they are coupled two by two? This is now on two lists, and you posted the question to two Usenet groups as well. I would strongly recommend having _a_ discussion on one forum - you could of course invite people there on other fora. People who read these lists but not the groups, or vice versa, will be unaware of the contributions elsewhere, perhaps repeating the same points, perhaps missing relevant information, perhaps failing to make a valuable comment on something he missed. > Jukka - I still have in mind some of your comments regarding Page > Valet. The new tool offers a "Listed" option based on what I think > you were suggesting: is this something like you had in mind? It's in that direction. It avoids the problem with the old format (which is still the default report format) of repeating information. Once you've told me that, say, table axes should be identified, I don't gain much from seeing that for _every_ <th> element. (Except in special cases.) I still think Site Valet outputs too much information, so that essential information is missed. I think results from an accessibility check should _begin_ with a simple, accessible statement that tells the overall result (like failing or passing a test, together with a number of errors detected, and with the URL of page echoed so that, for example, if I print the results I know what the tested page was). Displaying the "Normalized Markup" (how accessible is that term?) can be nice at times, but done routinely, it produces far too much data. Even the explanations are overinformation. They should be on a separate page, so that one does not need to see (or hear) them every time. And on that separate page, there should be an explanation of what "confidence" really means. Your confidence on being right when reporting that the tested page might have errors? For example, the message "Ensure that documents are readable without stylesheets too." has confidence Low. But the sad reality is that all too often people create pages that _rely_ on CSS effects for essential matters. How will those people be affected by the adjective "Low"? I have difficulties in understanding some of the messages, but maybe I need to study the WAI guidelines in more detail. Is it really the recommendation that we specify axes for all tables and explicitly associate data cells with headers, even for simple tables? I don't quite get the point of giving the message "Ensure that documents are readable without stylesheets too." about a <style> element (apparently, about _any_ style element) but not about <link rel="stylesheet">. Surely using an external style sheet does not remove the potential problem! "Summary page assessment" was obscure to me - I thought it tried to tell me something about the summary of my page! I then realized that it's the summary of the evaluation. And I don't really like a checker nagging about each and every blockquote, suggesting that I'm using it for formatting, and asking about each and every heading (sic) "Is this really a header?". If you start listing _possible_ problems, there's no end. Or at least a checker should suppress such messages unless they are specifically requested for. -- Jukka Korpela, senior adviser TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre http://www.tieke.fi Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 02:40:01 UTC