- From: Carlos A Velasco <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:38:18 +0200
- To: Yod Samuel Martín <samuelm@dit.upm.es>, 'Shadi Abou-Zahra' <shadi@w3.org>, 'ERT WG' <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear Samuel, all, I have sent to Shadi a new version with the following changes: - Added more references as discussed in the last call, i.e., CSV,, ATAG - Unified the concept of user (evaluation tool user) - Minor editorial corrections In regard to your suggestions, see below. On 04/30/2014 01:52 PM, Yod Samuel Martín wrote: > Dear all, > > Below you may find my comments for this draft: > > Location: 3.1 Tool A: Browser plug-in evaluating a rendered HTML page; last > list item > Current wording: "developer" is used several times to refer to the users of > this tool. > Suggested change: change to "evaluator" or "accessibility expert" (also used > currently) > Rationale: First, this tool does not integrate within the development > process, so it would better fit to other profiles (e.g. external auditors, > etc.) Second, potential confusion between the tool developer and the end > user who happens to be a web developer. Accepted, but I used the term "user". > Location: 3.3 Tool C: Accessibility evaluation tool for mobile applications > Current wording: refers to dependence on and integration with browser; on > the other hand, it can emulate APIs of different operating systems. > Suggested change: refer just to different devices of a single mobile OS. > Rationale: the nearest solution that comes to my mind with the description > of that tool is Firefox OS desktop client (B2G desktop client), which > emulates Firefox OS platforms through a Gecko engine. However, it is not > able to emulate different OS (as it depends on the APIs implemented by the > host browser, in this case it works because both happen to be Firefox). On > the other hand, a tool might well emulate the accessibility APIs implemented > by different platforms, however, in that case, they could not rely on a > specific browser. I modified slightly the wording trying to clarify the point. > Editorial Comments: > > Location: 3.1 Tool A: Browser plug-in evaluating a rendered HTML page; last > list item > Current wording: "The tool allows to export" > Suggested change: "The tool allows exporting" IMHO the current wording is correct. > Location: References [CSV] > Current wording: reference to RFC 4180 > <http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt> > Suggested change: not a change indeed, I would just like to bring up the > existence of a work in progress by W3C's CSV on the Web WG on an updated > version of CSV <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tabular-data-model-20140327/> Included. -- 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, 14 May 2014 07:39:29 UTC