- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:22:07 -0400
- To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, gian@stanleymilford.com.au, uce@roserockdesign.com
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
John, Gian, and Lee accepted action items yesterday to review files for conformance to checkpoint 1.1. (Thanks!!) There are 10 test files for checkpoint 1.1 at (as well as files for several other checkpoints) http://snow.utoronto.ca/access/evaltoolreview/ATRtestfiles/ (files with the name 1-1-1-f[1-10].html e.g. http://snow.utoronto.ca/access/evaltoolreview/ATRtestfiles/1-1-1-f1.html http://snow.utoronto.ca/access/evaltoolreview/ATRtestfiles/1-1-1-f2.html through http://snow.utoronto.ca/access/evaltoolreview/ATRtestfiles/1-1-1-f12.html The files were created by Chris Ridpath and Josh Krieger to cause evaluation tools to trigger specific warnings. After going through them again, I think it would be more helpful to go through the few mock sites that I'm aware of. I expect that more mock sites exist. If you are aware of one, please send me a link so we can generate a list. 1. mock news site created by Matt May. This site was created to purposefully violate several checkpoints. http://bestkungfu.com/csun/ Many images do not have text equivalents. What should the text equivalent be? Do you agree with the text equivalents that are provided? What about the flash animation - what text equivalent would you assign for that. 2. WebAIM's mock site - University of the Antarctic Again, this site purposefully violates several checkpoints http://www.webaim.org/tutorials/uofa/ What should the missing text equivalents be? Do you agree with the text equivalents that are provided? 3. W3C mock health news site created by Ian Jacobs. It purposefully violates several checkpoints http://www.w3.org/Talks/1999/0512-wai-www8-ij/bad/index.html What should the missing text equivalents be? Here is the "fixed" version. Do you agree with the fixes? http://www.w3.org/Talks/1999/0512-wai-www8-ij/good/index.html 4. I am reluctant to select live sites without asking permission from the site owner. Does anyone wish to offer their own site for review? Particularly one that contains audio? How can we make this exercise more helpful? Suggestions encouraged! Thank you, --wendy -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa /--
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 14:20:45 UTC