RE: [for review] updated draft AERT

Dear all,

Below you may find my comments to the latest draft of AERT (may I already
say WAET? :-) )

First a procedural comment to the editors: I may assume all the comments
previously provided have been processed (either integrated or consciously
discarded, yet processed), right? Just in case I need to check if any has
been inadvertently omitted.

General comments:
------------------------

Location: 3 Example profiles of evaluation tools
Suggested change: Explain the granularity of tool profiles. Agree on the
granularity expected from tool profile descriptions, and provide some hints
in the introduction to section 3.
Rationale: I have noticed each of us might prefer varying detail level for
some aspects of the tool. Each approach has its advantages (conciseness vs
formalism), but my concern is that readers may have different views on what
they should write for (and expect from) the profile of a tool.


Relation with authoring tools.
ATAG 2.0 (Candidate Recommendation) defines what is and what is not an
authoring tool <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#glossary> 
"Examples of software that are not considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0
(in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):
(...) stand-alone accessibility checkers: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because a
stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair
functionality does not actually modify web content. An accessibility checker
with repair functionality or that is considered as part of a larger
authoring process would be considered an authoring tool."
The last sentence might (might it?) affect somehow these features of AERT:
2.3.7 Error repair, 2.4.1 Workflow integration and 2.4.5 Tool accessibility


Editorial comments:
-------------------------

Location: Reference to WCAG20-TECHS
Comment: URL has been changed and now points to WCAG 2.0 (the main, W3C
Recommendation), instead of WCAG 2.0 Techniques (the WG Note), but the rest
of the reference is still referring to the Techniques, is that right?
Besides, a new stable version of the Techniques document has just been
published last week, so some data (date, editors) would need to be fixed.


Regards,

Samuel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de abril de 2014 9:38
Para: ERT WG
Asunto: [for review] updated draft AERT

Dear Group,

The latest draft of AERT (working title) for review is here:
  - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT

Please send comments for discussion to the list!


Regards,
   Shadi

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI
International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT
WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 12:35:54 UTC