W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Evalutation Tools List, suggestions

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:27:39 +0100
Message-ID: <43E3301B.4050900@w3.org>
To: achuter@technosite.es
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your useful comments, please find some thoughts below:


Alan Chuter wrote:
> On the Simple Search form, the list of languages is longer than on the 
> Advanced one. I think it should be the other way around.

This is a bug because the data is actually static and not coming from the database (yet). They are now both equally long.


> I don't think Brazilian is a language; perhaps in the final version the 
> options will be restricted to values present in the database.

Fixed to "Portuguese - Brazil". These values will be pulled from the database in the next update.


> I agree with Justin (what I think he implies) that the difference 
> between HTML and XHTML is not useful. It would neeed some explanation 
> about what it means. Does it mean that the page is validated as XHTML?

In fact, some tools can not validate XHTML and only do HTML. We can discuss how useful this information is with regard to the potential confusion it may be causing.


> "Languages" whould perhaps specify "Interface languages". As Justin 
> points out about "Web Technologies", perhaps it needs explaining somewhere.

It is very difficult to find short yet precise and clear labels. This is something that we may want to discuss today in EO.


> I think it is important to link from the form to the "Selecting Web 
> Accessibility Evaluation Tools" page, as criteria like "User Interfaces" 
> and "Functionality" are very difficult to understand otherwise.

This is an open action item. However, the tools list and the selecting tools document have "grown apart". We need to decide how to realign the terms in both documents.


> Spidering: I think that this is a useful criterion, and essential for 
> large-scale evaluations, but it itsn't mentioned.

This will be added, several tool vendors asked for it be included. However, I recall a discussion about "Spidering" vs "Crawling" vs ...


> It's also important to know when links are in Flash content or PDF 
> rather than HTML.

No tool vendors have requested an entry for such a feature yet. Which guidelines require this check?


> I hope to be on the call today to discuss this.

Looking forward!


Cheers,
  Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ | 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | 
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | 
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 10:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:38 UTC