Re: RDF entries for Deque products (update)

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Arch wrote:
> On 23 November I wrote:
> 
> "I also propose that format conversion tools such:
>   * PDF to HTML Converter (Andrew)
>   * Microsoft Power Point WWW Publishing Accessibility Wizard (Andrew)
>   * Office 2000 HTML Filter (Andrew)
> are not "web accessibility evaluation tools" either, and should also be dropped."
> 
> They are currently in the "HOLD" list. Do we need to reopen this discussion? 

The discussion is not closed, otherwise they would be in the section "Drop". Actually, specifically these tools are my main concern. For me they are in a gray zone and I feel that it may be better to keep them for now then drop them. Anyway, still under discussion...


> I'll admit to being biased by the evaluation aspect of the collection.

Yes, me too. I think we may need to bring back to EOWG for discussion there too. I am currently also talking with Judy and Shawn, and maybe we will check with ATAG folks too.


> What we need to be careful of if we include tools of this nature is that they are 
> clearly identified as repair (only), and not confused with evaluation - most of 
> the repair tools already included are in fact 'eval & repair'.

Agreed. Possibly we may need to clarify even more.


Thanks for your input to this discussion.


Cheers,
 Shadi


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:25 AM
> To: Andrew Arch
> Cc: 'Carlos A Velasco'; public-wai-ert-tools@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RDF entries for Deque products (update)
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew, Carlos,
> 
> First, I disagree that Undoc is not a repair tool. One way of repairing inaccessible PDF files is converting them to HTML. On the other hand, I agree that generating HTML is mainly the responsibility of authoring tools.
> 
> We need to stay flexible and not be too narrow with our definition of "evaluation and repair tools". Let's try to work on criteria that will allow us to include (and promote) several variances of tools that help make Web sites accessible yet keep the list useful.
> 
> To me, this is not a straight forward question.
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
> Andrew Arch wrote:
>> Hello Carlos & Shadi,
>>
>> I agree that Deque Undoc is not an evaluation and repair tool - I actually consider it to be an Authoring Tool, especially when Deque say "Deque Undoc for PDF extracts PDF content, layouts and graphics and transforms them into well-structured XML and HTML".
>>
>> I agree with Carlos that it should not be included in the current database.
>>
>> Cheers, Andrew
>> _________________________________
>> Dr Andrew Arch
>> Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
>> 454 Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong 3144, Australia
>> Ph +61 (0)3 9864 9282; Fax +61 (0)3 9864 9370
>> http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-wai-ert-tools-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-wai-ert-tools-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Carlos A
>> Velasco
>> Sent: Monday, 6 February 2006 7:38 PM
>> To: public-wai-ert-tools@w3.org
>> Subject: RDF entries for Deque products (update)
>>
>>
>> Hi Shadi,
>>
>> These are the entries for Deque products (according to their input). Two 
>> issues:
>> * According to the same problems of EARL, we shall not be using 
>> dc:location for URIs.
>> * IMHO, Deque Undoc is not an evaluation tool, just a PDF transformer.
>>
>> regards,
>> carlos
>> PS: Sorry for the delay.
> 

-- 
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 Wednesday, 8 February 2006 22:10:16 UTC