- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:25:23 -0500
- To: "'EOWG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <010301c4f403$f0a8cc90$a201a8c0@deque.local>
Dear All,
My understanding of an evaluation tool is something that can look at the underlying code and say whether or not it meets the guideline / checkpoint. It will verify the correctness of the relevant accessibility technique incorporated. Some tools can cover more checkpoints than others and some checkpoints cannot really be verified because of absence of accessibility techniques to implement them, rendering the code really unverifiable objectively.
Then there are tools that can be used to simulate what the code will do. To do this one can use tools developed for the limited purpose of simulating the real world experience or use assistive technologies really used by PWD. It will be left to the user to determine if the code meets or fails the checkpoint. These tools in all likelihood will not have the ability to report accessibility violations and specific instances where the code fails to implement accessibility techniques- a feature expected of evaluation tools (first category above).
Both these categories can be covered under the umbrella of "qquality assurance tools for accessibility".
The document being developed should focus on evaluation tools and repair tools only. It should explain the difference between eval tools and other simulation / AT tools. Another doc can be devoted to them if needed.
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems,11180 Sunrise Valley Drive,
4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Fax: 703-225-0387
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
----- Original Message -----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra
To: 'Andrew Arch'
Cc: 'Steven Faulkner (E-mail)' ; 'EOWG (E-mail)'
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: [selecting eval tools] simplifying terminology and wording at beginning
hi andrew,
indeed, my take from the last call is that the term "Evaluation Tools"
needs much more solid clarification. for example, also standard browser
functions (such as turning off images etc) can be used to evaluate Web
sites but it may seem a stretch calling these evaluation tools. maybe if
this is explained more clearly in the introduction of the document,
things may become clearer. do you have other suggestions?
regards,
shadi
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrew Arch
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 01:07
To: 'EOWG (E-mail)'
Cc: shadi@w3.org; 'Shawn Henry'; Steven Faulkner (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [selecting eval tools] simplifying terminology and wording
at beginning
Shawn/Shadi/All,
Just re-reading Shawn's suggested re-wording of Shadi's draft [0] -
certainly makes it clearer, but as a result highlights what appear to be
gaps in the feature classification.
For instance, would we classify WebAIM's WAVE [1] as a transformation
tool?
It is vastly different from a program like JAWS [2] that literally
transforms the page from text to sound. Or would we classify the WAVE as
a
conformance tool? Again, while it clearly indicates areas on your page
that
fail specific checkpoints, it is quite different from programmes like
Bobby
[3] that provide a pass/fail type of report.
And how would we classify our Accessibility Toolbar [4]? The Toolbar
includes the option to "validate" pages and CSS, as well as providing a)
a
variety of "transformations" as per the WAVE, b) indicators of the
presence
of certain (potentially problematic) code and objects c) a variety of
simulations (are these transformations?) and d) hooks into IE for other
manual testing.
I use both the WAVE and the Accessibility Toolbar for "conformance
checking", and yet neither gives me a "report"!
Taking Sailesh's comments [5] further, I think we need to think a little
more about what we mean by Evaluation Tools (Repair Tools are probably
clear
enough?) and what features we all look for and/or use. Unfortunately I
have
no brilliant ideas immediately, other than to suggest that "conformance
tools" might need to be broken to discuss automatic (limited)
conformance
checking and manual conformance checking. It may also mean some more
thinking and reclassification of the ERT listing [6]. For instance,
Sailesh
suggests that JAWS should not be considered a transformation tool
(though it
fits Shadi's current definition), but raises the question of products
like
Home Page Reader [7], which is a useful analytical tool. And then where
does
Fangs [8] fit as a simulator of a screen reader?
Seems like a good topic for a forthcoming EO meeting, or maybe a
combined
meeting with the ERT Working Group?.
Andrew
[0] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools.html
[1] http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp
[2] http://www.hj.com/fs_products/software_jaws.asp
[3] http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
[4] http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/toolbar/index.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004OctDec/0147.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools
[7] http://www-306.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
[8] http://sourceforge.net/projects/fangs/
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Accessible Information Solutions, NILS
Ph +613 9864 9282; Fax +613 9864 9370
http://www.nils.org.au/ais/
National Information and Library Service
A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd.
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Shawn Henry
Sent: Saturday, 18 December 2004 3:09 AM
To: EOWG (E-mail)
Cc: shadi@w3.org
Subject: [selecting eval tools] simplifying terminology and wording at
beginning
Shadi & EOWG,
Below is a first pass at simplifying the beginning of the document.
I feel pretty strongly that we should use only "evaluation tools" for
the
high-level term (e.g., in the title) - and then only where necessary use
the
specific "types" of tools.
Best,
~ Shawn
========
<h1>Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
<h2>Introduction
Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs that help
determine
if a Web site is accessible, and help improve Web accessibility. This
document explains different features of evaluation tools and helps to
determine which types of tools and features would best meet your
specific
needs.
WAI encourages the development and evolution of Web accessibility
evaluation
tools, and maintains an <a>extensive list of evaluation tools</a>. WAI
does
not endorse or promote any specific tool or vendor.
<h2>Features of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
Web accessibility evaluation tools provide one or more of the following
features:
- Checks whether Web pages meet specific guidelines or standards, such
as
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. For example, the tool
lists
which guidelines the Web pages does and does not meet. [short example of
results] These tools can be called "<strong>conformance tools</>."
- Changes the appearance or presentation of Web pages, which can help
identify potential accessibility problems. For example, the tool might
read
the Web page aloud (screen reader), or add HTML markup to the visual
presentation of the page. [screen grab that matches written example]
These
tools are called "<strong>transformation tools</>."
- Helps fix accessibility problems in Web pages. For example, the tool
might
provide a dialog box for entering missing alternative (ALT) text
descriptions for images. [screen grab that matches written example]
These
tools are called "<strong>repair tools</>."
- Checks whether Web pages meet Web specifications, such as HTML, XHTML,
or
CSS. These are called "<strong>validation tools</a>," and they evaluate
more
than specific accessibility issues.
Web accessibility evaluation tools are usually stand-alone software, and
sometimes are "plug-ins" for Web browsers or Web authoring tools (such
as
Web page editors, content management systems, or word processors). Some
tools run periodically to monitor Web site accessibility. [wonder if
this
paragraph fits here or elsewhere?]
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:28:57 UTC