Comments WAET

Dear ERT,

I just wanted to say I think you all did a great job on the WAET. I've written up a few thoughts I had while reviewing the  public draft. I've asked the members of the auto-wcag community group to see if they can review the document as well. Hope this is of some help for you all! Looking forward to see how the document will develop further. 

Regards,

Wilco Fiers
Accessibility Foundation


- COMMENT 1 -
2.1.1. Content types : This confused me a bit, because of the word 'content'. In WCAG the word 'content' means something different then it does in HTTP. I think for WCAG what is called 'content' here is actualy 'technologies'. Maybe something like "Processed technologies" is clearer, as the main question here seems to be, does the tool look at just the HTML, or does it take CSS, Javascript, etc. into account?

- COMMENT 2 -
A feature I miss that relates to automated tools is reliability benchmarking. There are big differences between the reliability of different automated tools. Knowing how many tests a tool has and how reliable their findings are can be important. When you use a tool that monitors large numbers of web pages it is more important that a tool provides reliable results. But when you are developing a website it is important that a tool gives you as many potential issues as it can find and let the developer figure out what are real issues and what are false positives.

- COMMENT 3 -
2.4.1 Workflow integration mentions bug tracking. I would like this to be a little more extensive. For instance, are there protocols that bug/issue trackers use that are recommended? How should you ensure that the same issue get's logged multiple times, either because it comes from a second evaluation or because it's an issue that is in a templated and so it repeats on many pages?

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:15:09 UTC