RE: [for review] updated draft AERT

Thank you Carlos for the report, as it makes it easier for me to follow the
outcome of previous comments (htmldiff helps, but it's not the ultimate
solution :-) )

Hear you all in a while.

Regards,

Samuel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Carlos A Velasco [mailto:carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de] 
Enviado el: martes, 29 de abril de 2014 13:25
Para: Yod Samuel Martín; 'Shadi Abou-Zahra'; 'ERT WG'
Asunto: 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 Wednesday, 30 April 2014 12:30:03 UTC