- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:35:08 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Len and I have talked further about the Thursday morning agenda. We felt that it would be valuable to talk about the evaluation of authoring tools on Thursday. In reviewing the issue I came up with the following possible evaluation processes: 1) A manual checkpoint by checkpoint evaluation by an informed evaluator who knows ATAG and is reasonably familiar with the tool. 2) Testing of the tool by creating a representative test document with the tool and assessing the outcome using WCAG and assessing the tool using a guideline 7 checklist for the specific task. 3) Either of the above using a checklist or test document specific to the class of tool. 4) Recruiting 8 average users of the tool who know little if anything about access and asking them to create a test document using the tool and then assessing the outcome using WCAG. In addition recruiting authors with disabilities and asking them to create a test document and assessing the accessibility of the task using the tool. Half of these will give comparative data if done consistently but can't be used to make a definitive conformance statement. The other half takes a long time but will arrive at a definitive conformance statement. What are peoples thoughts? Jutta
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 16:32:56 UTC