Comments on WAET

Dear ERT,

I reviewed the WAET today and think it's a great piece of work. It 
covers many aspects and will be a helpful document for tool developers 
and accessibility experts.

Below you find my comments and suggestions.

Kind regards
Annika


== Review of http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-WAET-20140724/ ==

Abstract
"Features to specify and manage (...) web accessibility evaluations".
COMMENT: The aspect of managing web accessbility evaluation is not taken 
up in the features. "2.4.1 Workflow integration" focuses mainly on 
developers. But the person responsible for managing the process (e.g. of 
creating a new web site) is usually not the developer.


2.1.1 Content types
"From the accessibility standpoint, the evaluation of these resources is 
relevant for issues like colour contrast, colour blindness or media 
alternatives, for instance."
COMMENT: Resources can't be colour blind.
SUGGESTION: "colour differentiation" or "color distinguishability"?


2.2 Testing functionality
SUGGESTION (New feature): Support users in manual testing by emulating 
how people with disability experience the web content. For instance a 
tool providing a linearized version of a page (as experienced by screen 
reader users) or a tool that shows how the page looks for people with 
different types of colour blindness.


2.3 Reporting and monitoring
COMMENT: For users wanting to import/export/compare testing results, the 
major challenge ist to align the test results from different sources. 
This is related to "2.3.3 Import/export functionality" and "2.3.5 
Results aggregation" but could also be added as a new feature.
SUGGESTION (New feature): The tool uses a standardised way to refer to 
the accessility aspect/problem that was tested.
E.g. in EARL this could be achieved by the use of a common set of values 
for the earl:testcase property.
Such a way of referencing WCAG 2.0 doesn't exist at the moment.
Could be a new task for ERT?

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 10:49:33 UTC