See also: IRC log
Shadi: length of description field of 200 characters seems to be agreed! The intention is to keep the description short. How others think?
All: agreed to that
Carlos: if needed we could later on shorten it.
Shadi: Try always to make it as short as
possible. So it should be not more than 100 words. It should not be a hard
limit!
... Now to the question of the border line between evaluation and validation
tools.
... As we offer a flexibel serach function, we can have tools with different
features.
Andrew: Authoring tools and related tools as HTML convertre and filter should be listed some where else and not on this list, because they are not per se accessibility tools
Carlos: has the same oponion
<Andrew> Steve: agrees also
Shadi: to check by the people of the authoring
tools if they want to host such a list.
... otherwise may be we will have to host an extra samll list about such
tools
... other type of tools are services filters,...
Steve: check the definition of conversion, repair tools. Do we need to look on such tools which have been long not updated?
shadi: some tools need to be droped.
... some tools ar the outcome of research projects. After the project they
are not then maitained
Steve: should we put such tools in an extra list and in the main list. They are more may be for academic reasons necessary
carlos: our job is not to provide research materials
shadi: in w3c we are interessted in providing such info to help people develop new tools
carlos: following this path would be not consistent
shadi: what are the criteria in your oponion
carlos: usable and up to date tools and accessibility evaluation are the criteria
shadi: in some tools there is only a gap in the development
carlos: at least contact data should exist
Steve: we could have an achive for such old tools
<Andrew> Andrew: the current http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools.html links to the archive at http://www.w3.org/Tools/
andrew: the current w3c website contains an archive llink at the bottom. dozens of tools are listed there
steve: if some tools are revived we could take them again into the main list
shadi: what other types of tools do we have? we have covered authoring tools; proof of concept tools
andrew: proxies and filters as well
... the description of such tools are not directly accessibility tools
steve: they are not designed for that. There is
no documentation how to use as accessibility tools
... do somebody have a list of suspects?
shadi: we should judge every tool on single
case check
... repair tools and filters are creating confusion
andrew: leave them as historical record
shadi: office conversion tools are worked on by the uni of illinios
andrew: they are authoring tools
shadi: the converter list has been created by somebody from cern
steve: the last update is from 2002
shadi: to check with the authring tools group,
what tey can take over.
... summary; check which tools can be took out (authoring, archive,..)
<scribe> ACTION: for shadi to check with the current list of tools, are included in archives or should be hosted by other groups and come to the group with the remain [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/24-er-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: all others; check for tools and classify them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/24-er-minutes.html#action02]
steve: it would be usefull for commercial tools to check if there is a trail version
shadi: we add to license "demo version available" or "trail"
andrew: usefull to know if the commercial tools in the range of 100$ 1000$ 10.000$ or 100.0000$ ... are
shadi: difficult, because listing of prices is
not inline with rules of w3c.
... reflect type of tool in the description (enterprise, ...)
carlos: price is difficult to specifiy. It depends on so many issues. But target audience could be specified. E.g. big portals
shadi: let us specify the categories of target audience.
carlos: public sector, commercial, private. But much importnat the website size is the bigger issue
shadi: automated or not. multi page or not.
andrew: spiding power is as well an important issue.
shadi: enterprise, commercial, freeware, .... the word enterprise is expected to handle much more pages rather than a desktop tool
andrew: who will investigate that? It will be a huge effort.
shadi: summary; add to license model "trail" "enterprise" "spiding/crawling"
andrew: agree to "trail" not to the other two
steve: how many pages could be checked would be usefull
andrew: should we put the info about license model "trail" "enterprise" "spiding/crawling" in the description?
shadi: sandor you could contact some vendors to
check if they would like to have such info in structured fields or in
description?
... suggest to drop adding to the license model "trail" "enterprise"
"spiding/crawling"
all: agreed to that
steve: is it possible to add new tools?
shadi: only if it is low hanging fruit e.g.
imergo
... please focus on the current list. Afterwards we try to extend the list
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2005/tools
shadi: volunteers to check the remaining tools
steve: offered himself
shadi: resend a reminder to the vendor if they
do not replay in an appropriate time period
... cc the list in the mails to the vendors
... who is interessted in checking for new tools?
steve: yes
sandor: yes
carlos: no at the moment (FIT)
<Andrew> andrew: yes
shadi: other people may join in teh future e.g. a japanese person
andrew: how about vendors who does not reply. Should their toosl be excluded?
shadi: we should decide on a case by case
basis
... AOB
... propose next meeting 08.12.2005
andrew: deadline?
shadi: the real deadline is the end of the
month. If we do have 50% answers, then we can start the list with them. We
can start to publish then in decembre
... availablity for next meeting?
... 09.12.2005?
... 09.12.2005 12:00 CET
<scribe> ACTION: shadi; modify the form approperiatly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/24-er-minutes.html#action03]
<Andrew> ACTION: shadi to correct spelling for graphics & scaleable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/24-er-minutes.html#action04]