W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2007

ERT WG comments on ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of 7 December 2006

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:39:02 +0200
Message-ID: <462738B6.4080505@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

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], 7 February 2007 
[3], and 18 April 2007 [4]. Please find our comments below:

#1. DEFINITION OF AUTHORING TOOLS
  - <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".


#2. INTERACTION WITH EVALUATION TOOLS
  - 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.


#3. DEFINITION OF SEMI-AUTOMATED CHECKS
  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#def-Checking>
  - In ERT WG we have been discussing the definition of semi-automated 
checking. In the latest EARL 1.0 Last Call Working Draft [5], we took an 
approach based on the *primary responsibility* for determining the 
outcome of a check to differentiate between the different types of 
testing. For example, consider the following tow scenarios:
   o A person uses a tool to evaluate a site. The tool asks the user if 
the color-contrast is sufficient, and uses this input directly as an 
outcome of a test (such as WCAG 1.0 CP 2.2).
   o A tool uses a person to evaluate a site. The tool asks the user if 
a table is used for layout or data purposes, and uses this input for 
carrying out other tests (such as WCAG 1.0 CP 5.1).
  - We have received some review comments on this topic and will be 
processing them in the coming weeks. ERT WG would like to coordinate 
with AUWG on a common definition for manual, semi-automatic, and 
automatic testing of Web content.


#4. EXPORTING AND IMPORTING REPORTS
  - <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/2007/04/18-er-minutes#item03>
[5] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#testmode>

Regards,
   Shadi Abou-Zahra for ERT WG


-- 
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, 19 April 2007 09:39:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT