- From: Jim Byrne <j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:03:35 +0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I had not realised that so much work had already been done in this area. Thanks for all the links and pointers to resources. Once I have finished my own review I will look at the existing assessment and - if appropriate - supplement it with my own findings. All the best, Jim on 21/3/02 4:19 am, Denise Wood at denise_wood@operamail.com wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:09:32 -0500 (EST) > To: Denise Wood <denise_wood@operamail.com> > Subject: RE: Accessibility problems with Blackboard? > > >> Hi, >> >> actual assessment of stuff, or compiling information and publishing it, >> sounds like a good idea nearly all the time. PLease note that in the case of >> "learning support systems", or "courseware", or "tools that let you do the >> things that the web lets you do, but all come in one box and get sold to >> universities along with support" there are reviews done by the Authoring Tool >> Accessibility Guidelines group http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU as part of the >> implementation reviews they do - this is an important group of authoring >> tools. >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals > > > Thanks for this Charles. I think it may be best to complement the work of the > Authoring Tool > Accessibility Guidelines group. We could do this in the following ways: > 1. Contributing to the existing reviews already completed by the group (ie > Blackboard 5.5, Domino 5.02a, Prometheus 5.08 and WebCT 3.6) by sending > further information, comments etc to the reviewer for inclusion when the > reviews are updated. > 2. Suggesting courseware that needs to be reviewed and is not yet included on > the list. There are procedures outlined on the site about how to go about > this. However, Charles, what is not clear, is when the reviews are completed. > I note there are several packages listed for review but no review links exist. > I presume that means a review has not yet been completed? At the moment the > reviews are limited in so far as only four products have been reviewed. > 3. Submitting reviews (using the draft template document which can be > supplied)of courseware not yet listed or reviewed. > > Al, I think this would provide the most efficient means for ensuring > consistency in the reviews, adding to the limited list of reviewed packages > currently on the site and providing a more effective means for dissemination > of the findings. Are there any volunteers to contribute to existing reviews > based on experiences using the courseware, suggesting additional courseware > for review and conducting reviews of courseware not yet evaluated by the > Working group? > > BTW, the ATAG pages provide a link to Ocotillo Central which lists the URLs of > reviews of many courseware applications: > http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ocotillo/courseware/compare.html -- Jim Byrne Project Director, The Making Connections Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 OBA, 0141 331 3893 Everything you need to know about publishing accessible information on the Web. Services: Website Accessibility Audits, Accessible Web design, Accessible Website Management Training. The Making Connections Unit: http://www.mcu.org.uk/ Scottish Disability Information Mailing list: http://www.mcu.org.uk/mailinglists/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 06:04:06 UTC