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

Thanks Hidde,

I agree with your thoughts except on two points.  The accessibility
statement/ACR as companies can have either or both, and I think it would
help to have clearly different options here.  A lot of companies just have
a web page on their site stating they aim to be accessible, and an email
address for people to mail if they find problems as an accessibility
statement. An ACR is a different as a full report into the tool's
accessibility compared to the checkpoints (we have INT, WCAG, EN 301 549 or
Section 508 versions).

As for the social media part, I will add my thoughts to the Github post, as
I believe we cannot assume what people will choose and social media is
commonly used as easy and free for less tech savvy people to use.

Regards,
Helen

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:10 AM Hidde de Vries <hidde@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

-- 

Helen Burge | Senior Accessibility Consultant | +44796-748-1296

Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good

deque.com