W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2007

[DRAFT] ERT WG review comments on ATAG 2.0

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:49:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4614AA0A.1060607@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Please find below some draft comments to AUWG on the ATAG 2.0 Last Call 
Working Draft. I intend to send these comments early next week, please 
let me know if you need more time to review them.


Dear AUWG,

ERT has looked the ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of 7 December 2006 
[1] during the teleconferences on 31 January 2007 [2], and 7 February 
2007 [3]. Please find our comments below:

  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#intro-def-au>
  - While the definition of an "authoring tool" is non-trivial and 
ideally addresses all components that are part of a Web development 
process, the currently proposed definition seems to be too broad. For 
example, image and plain text editors are regarded as Web authoring 
tools even when they are "used separately".

  - There was no clear consensus or a specific suggestion from ERT WG 
but in general a clearer definition of the interaction between authoring 
and evaluation tools may be helpful. For example mentioning the 
possibility of providing APIs for plugin evaluation tools where 
appropriate (such as B.2.2 & B2.3) may be helpful.

  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#def-Checking>
  - In the latest EARL 1.0 Last Call Working Draft [4] we define manual, 
semi-automated, and automated checking slightly differently:
   o manual: Where the test was performed based on a person's judgement. 
This includes the case where that judgement was aided through the use of 
a software tool.
   o semiAutomatic: Where a software tool was primarily responsible for 
generating a result, even if with some human assistance
   o automatic: Where a software tool has carried out the test 
automatically without any human intervention.
  - In other words, the *primary responsibility* for determining the 
outcome of a check defines the testing mode. If a human judgment is 
needed to carry out a test then it is a manual one, not semi-automated.

  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#check-progress-feedback>
  - Despite EARL 1.0 being in draft stage, it may be useful to provide 
an optional provision for exporting and importing reports in a 
structured format. This may further improve the interaction between 
authoring and evaluation tools by promoting the integration and exchange 
of data.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-er-minutes#item03>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-er-minutes#item02>
[4] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#testmode>

   Shadi Abou-Zahra for ERT WG

### END DRAFT ###


Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 07:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC