- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:19:21 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Someone mentioning EARL prompts me to post this ... In the course of developing Site Valet Enterprise Edition 2.0, I've integrated a full accessibility audit trail. Pages will be assessed by an automatic agent, and may (or must, according to local policy) then be reassessed by a human. For the AccessValet desktop tool, it is sufficient to generate a result (Pass/Fail/Unknown/unchecked) and a separate conclusion. But for the sitewide database and audit trail, what is required is a single-word status to appear in query results, etc. I'm currently using a slightly different vocabulary, that doesn't fit as well as (IMO) it should with EARL: * Pass No problems with that one * Accept An informed decision not to comply with some part of the guidelines. * Review No conclusion has been reached and the page should be reviewed. * Repair The page has been reviewed and repairs have been identified. A much more positive thing than "Fail" to say to users! These are supported by more detailed reports equivalent to the Executive Summary from the desktop product. But should I be concerned about departing from EARL vocabulary in the above? -- Nick Kew
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:19:24 UTC