ATAG 2.0 relationship to to evaluation and repair tools

Hi,

The current December 7 working draft of ATAG 2.0 defines authoring tools 
as follows [1]:

###
ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as: any software, or collection of 
software components, that authors use to create or modify Web content 
for publication, where a "collection of software components" are any 
software products used together (e.g., base tool and plug-in) or 
separately (e.g., markup editor, image editor, and validation tool), 
regardless of whether there has been any formal collaboration between 
the developers of the products.
###

This seems to include evaluation and repair tools either as direct part 
of the authoring tool, or as an extension (plug-in etc). Also the 
Success Critera B.2.2 & B.2.3 explicitly talk about automated and 
semi-automated accessibility checking. This is worth considering when we 
develop resources in ERT WG.

At the same time, we should look at these parts more closely and make 
sure they cover our understanding as well. For example, does the 
interaction between (automatic & manual) evaluation and authoring tools 
need to be defined more closely? How?

Further parts worth looking at more closely:
- Section 2. on conformance (especially 2.2 conformance claim)
- B.2.4 & B.2.5 references to checking equivalent alternatives
- B.2.6 reporting errors and relationship to EARL


Regards,
   Shadi
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#intro-def-au>


-- 
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 Tuesday, 23 January 2007 18:18:45 UTC