W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools - Comments

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:17:36 +0100
To: "'Andrew Arch'" <andrew.arch@nils.org.au>, "'EOWG'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d901c5053b$bc7ff940$4502010a@K2>

Hi Andrew,

The problem is, in my opinion "repair tools" are essentially authoring tools. It is difficult to draw a clear line but I am coming to the conclusion that repair is only a feature of evaluation tools, just like precision or coverage.

I'm happy to discuss this further on the call.

Regards,
  Shadi


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Arch
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 02:50
To: shadi@w3.org; 'EOWG'
Subject: 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 13:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:37 UTC