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

Re: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 20 February 2013

From: <samuelm@dit.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:39:35 +0100
Message-ID: <0189aaaa363a0ff851158fc8f74e43e2.squirrel@correo.dit.upm.es>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "ERT WG" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
My apologies for not being able to join. Had an impromptu meeting at that
time. I have read the minutes (for now just the IRC logs) and tried to
catch up on the outcomes.

Regarding AERT, I note there has been much deliberation on who will be the
audience of the document, taking into account not only the potential
utility of the document, but also the resources available to the WG.
Following, you may find my opinion on the different alternatives that have
been posed:
a) End developers: understanding developers as "coders", I would not be
quite keen on this choice. End developers would need a great deal of
detail in the specification of what the tool must do, up to a point that
would interfere with implementation details. There have been some efforts
to define canonical testing techniques (such as UWEM Tests [1], by the
way, is any of you aware of the current progress of UWEM 2.0?). However,
IMHO doing that for the whole WCAG2.0 would be quite beyond the group
scope. Moreover, even that would not account for many other requirements
(regarding e.g. presentation of results, reporting, selection of
resources, etc.)
b) Procurers and/or end-users: as it has already been pointed out, there
is another document by EOWG specifying how web accessibility evaluation
tools can be chosen.
c) Managers: I would go for that option. Indeed, I would personally prefer
software analysts / software engineers, or even software project leaders,
who are in a position of drawing the details of a tool from a set of, more
or less generic requirements. The can provide judgments and take decisions
on which functions are going to be implemented by their tools, and how the
required functionalities will map to specific user metaphors, etc. That
said, it may be the case that the roles of software analyst and software
develop coalesce into the same person, but it might not be always the
case.

I hope this can be useful to provide my input regarding today's topics; as
I could not make it to the conference.

Regards,
Samuel.

[1] UWEM 1.2 Tests <http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/UWEM_1_2_TESTS.pdf>

> ERT WG,
>
> The next teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 20 February 2013 at:
>   * 14:30 to 15:30 Central European Time (CET)
>   * 08:30 to 09:30 North American Eastern Time (ET)
>   * 05:30 to 06:30 North American Pacific Time (PT)
>
> Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise
> date for your own time zone:
>   - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>
>
> The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3794 - "ERWG")
>   * +1.617.761.6200
>   * SIP / VoIP - http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP
>
> We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org)
>   * IRC server: irc.w3.org
>   * port: 6665
>   * channel: #er
>
>
> AGENDA:
>
> #1. Welcome
>
>
> #2. Approval of WCAG-EM publication as updated Working Draft
>   - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0016
>
>
> #3. Continued discussion on requirements for AERT
>   - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements20130211
>
>
> #4. Next Meeting
>
>
> Regards,
>    Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 16:59:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 February 2013 16:59:32 GMT