- From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:04:23 +0100
- To: "'EOWG'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi Folks, Here are some very first coments: - Execute automated accessibility checks to determine the accessibility of the Web content; The remaining part of the document is clear about automated checks and potential errors, but this sentence can be misunderstood if read out of context. My proposed wording: "Execute some automated accessibility checks to help and determine some accessibility problems of the Web content" - How Evaluation Tools Can Not Help You: I do like this section - 2. Types of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools If we want to make a division and classify the various kinds of evaluation tools, we should decide a criteron: do we want to "sort" them by interface or by output results? It seems to me that the actual classification is based on too many criteria at the same time, so it risks to be confusing, because - for example - the generation of output reports has completely nothing to do with wizard interface. In my opinion any division should be done so that an evaluation tool belonging to one section doesn't belong to one or more other sections too. - 3. Evaluating Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools > Automation "Both the detection and the repair of accessibility barriers should be automatable to the highest degree possible" My proposed wording: "Both the detection and the repair of automatable checkpoints should be automatable to the highest degree possible." My best regards, Roberto Castaldo ------------------------------ WebAccessibile.Org Coordinator IWA/HWG Member R.castaldo@iol.it rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 13:07:00 UTC