W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Descriptors for accessibility tools.

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@sidar.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:43:06 +0100
To: <samuelm@dit.upm.es>, "'ERT WG'" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045e01ce09f8$7061a570$5124f050$@sidar.org>
Very good job, Samuel!

I miss an item: Contextual help.

For HERA (http://sidar.org/hera/) there are two types of contextual help:
- Contextual help short (For experienced reviewers and reminding them they
have to pay particular attention being when reviewing each point)
- Extensive context-sensitive Help (For novice reviewers and gives further
information on why the test is useful, who benefits, etc.)

All the best,
Emmanuelle

-----Mensaje original-----
De: samuelm@dit.upm.es [mailto:samuelm@dit.upm.es] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de febrero de 2013 14:25
Para: ERT WG
Asunto: Descriptors for accessibility tools.

Dear ERT,

I have supervised two M.Sc. theses which included a survey on accessibility
evaluation tools. For that, a set of descriptors were defined, which were
then applied to the different tools. I have quickly compiled them and
provide a summary below, in case they might be helpful as an input for the
Requirements Analaysis for Techniques for Automated and Semi-Automated
Evaluation Tools. Note this list is descriptive, not
prescriptive: it was just created as a framework to describe more easily the
different tools, but it does not imply any choice is superior above others.

Regards,

Samuel.

Features of evaluation tools:
- Deployment:
	· online service
	· browser-triggered remote service (scriptlet, favelet, menu add-on)
	· server-side module (i.e. web application)
	· rich-client editor module (e.g. CMS, etc. maybe relying on remote
server support)
	· browser plug-in
	· installable desktop software
	· stand-alone (no installation) desktop software
- Platform requirements: OS, environment, dependencies, etc.
- Retrieval of evaluated contents:
	· capture rendered presentation directly from the browser
	· access to public URI from a remote server
	· access to a URI directly from the evaluator's equipment
	· access to local file system: either accessing a file:/// URI, or
directly accessing the local file-system, or uploading a form-data encoded
file to a service
	· direct user input.
- Analysis depth:
	· single document,
	· follow-links constrained to depth level
	· follow-links constrained to path filter (i.e. set of directories,
subdirectories)
	· follow-links constrained to domain filter (e.g. same domain,
subdomains).
- Accessibility requirements tested:
	· guideline families (here, usually WCAG 2.0)
	· success criteria selection: one by one, by conformance level
	· technique selection: automatic (depending on the content type),
partially manual.
	· user-defined techniques (using formal languages, plugins, etc.)
- Reporting:
	· summarized: scores -and specific metric used-, aggregated tables,
radar chart.
	· detailed: table, tree-like, linear
	· grouping: by criteria, level, result...
	· visual annotation: on top of the original rendering of the
content, on top of the original source code
	· output formats (e.g. HTML, PDF)
	· EARL support, including any vocabulary extensions (e.g.
- Manual revision: manual annotation of the report, adding the results of
evaluation tests.

Apart from those features, other, more targeted tools were identified:
- Browser toolbars, characterized by their functionalities. These can mainly
be grouped in: content manipulation, content summarization, and browser
reconfiguration.
- Specific criteria: contrast analyzers, readability analyzers, formal
validators, etc.
- Emulators of specific user ability profiles ("disability simulators").
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 14:43:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2013 14:43:54 GMT