RE: Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools - Comments

Hi Shadi, All.

As I said at last weeks teleconference, this is very good document [0] now - thanks Shadi.

That said, I still have some comments to make:

1. I think the discussion on Manual tools should reiterate (although possibly with different discussion) the points about:
1.1 Accessibility - manual tools need accessible interfaces too
1.2 Precision - again we don't want false positives or negatives, though we could possibly have a higher tolerance on a manual tool as the user will be interacting with it
1.3 Coverage - some manual tools focus on a single checkpoint, others can cover many checkpoints. Some can act as "tool set", combining a range of manual (and automatic) tools.

2. Also, like some others, I was initially confused by section 3. The heading doesn't seem to match the text, and the style is different. The heading seems inappropriate as we already have a document called "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility [1], but the content should not be lost. Is the section really about "other evaluation techniques"?

3. Several people have raised the issue of "Automated" tools - I was not sure why section 2.1 is called "Semi-automated", when it seemed to refer to automated. Maybe a distinction does need to be drawn.

4. In the December draft [2] section 2 talked about "evaluation", "repair" and "transformation" tools - we seem to have lost the distinction between "evaluation" and "repair" in the current draft [0]. While we have a question about "repair", I think it is something to consider drawing out a little in the introduction. 

Cheers, Andrew

[0] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools.html
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools-14-Dec-2004.html

Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 01:50:07 UTC