Re: [for review] updated draft AERT

Dear all, and especially Samuel,

I just sent an update on the document so Shadi can upload it. The main 
changes are:

- style issues are fixed (I hope ;-) )
- title changed until we got the feedback from EO working group
- more references and links added; other references updated
- minor editorial corrections to section 2
- section 3 updated according to the discussion we had in the last call
- summary table updated

In regard to Samuel comments, see below.
On 04/16/2014 01:08 PM, Yod Samuel Martín wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

Comment addressed. See above.


> 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

It is not clear to me what you mean with this. We can discuss it tomorrow.

>
> 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.

Fixed. It was an issue with my editor.

...
-- 
Best Regards, Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Saludos,
carlos

Dr Carlos A Velasco
   Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
   Web Compliance Center: http://imergo.com/ ˇ http://imergo.de/
   Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
   Tel: +49-2241-142609 ˇ Fax: +49-2241-1442609

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 11:26:08 UTC