RE: Accessibility of web pages

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> In fact a large number of RSACi ratings are not 0,0,0,0. Likewise, even a
> commercially biased claim is more useful than no claim at all, and since it
> would become trivially easy to write a counter-claim (using, for example, a

Not trivial to defend it in court.

> version of teh Web Acccessibility Report Tool that generated such information
> be signed, and corporations are also interested in minimising the number of
> people who say "the claims of company X are routinely untrustworthy" in a way
> that show up in search engines...

The bigger corporations seem to be able to ride out adverse publicity, and
"Our publicity machine is bigger than yours" works for them.

> In fact the primary goal as I see it is for editing software such as Amaya to
> track the accessibility status of content being worked on, and only ask

This is much more useful, I think:  people need to have software that
will increase the accessibility of content, and the definition of
accessibility needs to be public so it can be seen, criticised, and
enhanced. However...

> authors to fix things that need fixing. (As well as having a way of recording
> information if a Human tested something difficult to test by machine, that
> persists when a new tool is used to work on the content.)

...This last bit I'm not sure about.  If new work is done on the content,
then you have to re-test accessibility again in case it has been broken.
Or is this for regression testing, so that the site changes can be
compared to previous tests?
> Cheers
> Charles McCN

Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 05:45:21 UTC