W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Tools Review

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:13:34 -0500
Message-ID: <2f5e01c1a032$b240ba80$b040968e@wilddog>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Laurie Harrison" <laurie.harrison@utoronto.ca>
Yes, the EARL results will be made available.

Laurie Harrison will be heading up the review and she has added:

"We will be testing a representative sample (scope not yet finalized)
for both WAI and 508 compliance.

The main point is to come up with a product comparison with a focus on
evaluation accuracy and support for repair process. Usability issues
will also be considered."

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>; "Laurie Harrison"
<laurie.harrison@utoronto.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Tools Review


> Will full results of this study be available on the Wewb (e.g. EARL
> statements for each tool with regards to each checkpoint?)
>
> Chaals
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>
>   The ATRC, University of Toronto is undertaking a review and comparison
of
>   accessibility evaluation and repair tools currently on the market. In
>   preparation for this study, we are conducting a literature review of
>   existing work related to evaluation and repair tools specifically
designed
>   to address web accessibility issues.
>
>   While the ER web site and list serve archives provide valuable
resources, we
>   would like to ensure that we have made a thorough inquiry. The only
>   published review we have noted is the GCN article published in August
2001:
>   http://www.gcn.com/20_23/s508/16783-1.html  If anyone has information on
>   additional studies or literature, could you please suggest URLs or
journal
>   references?
>
>   The review we are undertaking will utilize the Access Tool Reviewer.
Using
>   the comprehensive set of test files provided by the Access Tool Reviewer
>   (ATR) we will track the ability of various products to handle the
specific
>   accessibility issue within each file.  The intention is to compare
current
>   standalone products on the market, such as:
>
>    A-Prompt Tool Kit (http://www.aprompt.ca)
>    InSight and InFocus (http://www.ssbtechnologies.com/index.php)
>    AccVerify and AccRepair
 (http://www.hisoftware.com/access/Index.html )
>    Page Screamer (http://crunchy.com/tools/index.html)
>    RetroAccess (http://www.retroaccess.com)
>   Bobby downloadable
>   Other tools as well
>
>   Results of this comparison will be presented at the CSUN 2002
conference.
>
>   Anyone interested in helping with the survey is invited to contact me or
>   Laurie Harrison (laurie.harrison@utoronto.ca).
>
>   Cheers,
>   Chris
>
>
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
258 5999
> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)
>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 10:13:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:40 GMT