Re: [wbs] response to 'Authoring Tools List: first draft review survey'

Hello Helen,

> I think the title needs revising.  "Authoring Tools That Support
> Accessibility" implies they are accessible.  Instead "Accessibility of
> Authoring Tools" is less stating they are accessible as a lot of tools are
> not accessible in this field.

Thanks. I agree with you, and others were saying similar things.

I've now the title revised it to be: “Authoring Tools with Accessibility Support”. Arguably, all tools will have some form of accessibility support, this list will help people find tools with a lot of it. 
 
> Are the options in the filters the final versions? If so we are missing a
> few under "Other". If adding reports here we can add "ACR available"
> (Accessibility Conformance Report).  Also type of tool could include
> "Social Media" as not quite any of those.

Yes, these are what I think should go into the first release and what was discussed <https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/4> on GitHub earlier. But I will take suggestions through this survey.

I would say “accessibility statement available” implies ACR or something like ACR is available. Or rather… having an ACR available is one of the ways you can have an accessibility statement available.

As for social media, we discussed leaving it out earlier <https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/4>  because unlikely for organisations to want to compare (because they'd go where audience is) and easier to work around for organisations who embed social media outings (by including, say, tweets, directly rather than through embes).

> I think each question is good and if they have a positive answer they must
> provide third party proof not just a "Yes I am keyboard accessible" as I
> know most will claim falsely.

I'm a bit torn here, because I worry that the more proof we ask, the less likely it will become to get entries at all. But on the other hand, the fewer proof we have, the less useful this tool will become.

I would suggest we allow vendors to state “I am keyboard accessible”, and have a method to complain about entries. It would probably make sense to carefully check when we get entries, but I'm uncertain if we'll have bandwidth on the team to do that consistently. 

> I have a lot of thoughts, and probably can help on the verification side as
> audit a lot of these tools.

Great, thanks! Let's talk again soon, curious about your thoughts! 


Thanks,
Hidde 

>> These answers were last modified on 23 September 2019 at 22:02:54 U.T.C.
>> by Helen Burge
>> 
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/auth-tool-1/ until 2019-09-23.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> The Automatic WBS Mailer
>