Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

Requirements for AERT

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements20130211.html

KV: some requirements from the accessible project
... we defined some requirements for evaluation tools

CV: is there documentation?

KV: yes, lts

CV: please provide them

SAZ: these requirements are for the document to be developed, rather than the end results

KV: we developed requirements that may be useful herer

SAZ: the overall goal of this work is to provide guidance for evaluation tool developers on how they can support WCAG 2
... the question for now is how this guidance will look like

KV: i suppose it will include examples and use cases?

SAZ: that's for us to decide
... not sure should be "complement" to WCAG-EM
... maybe just support it
... will we define the workflow for tools

CV: nightmare for tool developers when they don't understand where in the workflow their tools fit in
... can explain typical scenarios of workflows to show where tool support comes in

SM: could be useful if we can support different types of workflows
... can not prescribe a single one

<samuelm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php#relate

SM: no guidelines for evaluation tools
... not trying to develop guidelines but to fill a gap that ATAG does not provide
... not a set of requirements but a set of features that these tools could have
... framework of potential functionality
... from which developers can select which they want to implement
... not fully fledged guidelines prescribing what tools must do
... but giving guidance on what can be done
... are we planning a Recommendation or a Note?

SAZ: Note is the current plan

KV: can you give an example of what a workflow is?
... is it like the steps defined in WCAG-EM?

CV: did not mean to describe the different workflows
... but how evaluation tools fit into these workflows
... there are different audiences of evaluation tools
... with different roles and responsibilities
... the thought was to describe some of these

KV: wondering what we can provide as a technical Note that would benefit tool developers
... we talk about WCAG 2, workflows, and such
... but not clear what exactly we will provide
... probably need to analyze state of the art of what tools provide
... are we going to support WCAG 2? WAI-ARIA?
... still unclear what this document will provide
... also the scenarios are not very clear
... especially the second does not say what we will provide
... are we going to explain how tools implement WCAG 2 techniques?

CV: don't think we are aiming to provide an interpretation of WCAG 2

KV: but you have in the table of contents how to implement WCAG 2 and its techniques

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0003.html

SAZ: like the idea of listing tool features
... suggested something similar
... could have introduction describing overall workflow

CV: could be a very long list

SAZ: will need to do a cut off
... could try to be technology-agnostic
... like saying "a tool could automatically detect images without text alternative"

CV: might not be a very practical document
... will be very theortical
... need to talk about the checks if we want to address the developers of evaluation tools

SM: going into the techniques level is too much detail
... on the other hand staying at the SC level may be too high
... suggest staying technology-agnostic
... could describe the functionality without going into the specific implementation details
... also not to relate specifically to HTML vs WAI-ARIA
... to stay away from the implementation details
... provide techniques that are not technology specific
... not a 1:1 correspondence between our guidance and the techniques
... also suggest to group these guidances into profiles for tools
... for example focused tools
... or tools that are specific to WAI-ARIA

SAZ: we are talking about techniques but not in WCAG2 terminolofy
... more about functional description
... features that tools could provide
... also the profiles idea may address the concern about where tools fit into the evaluation process

CV: like the idea of profiles too
... want to focus the audience as soon as possible
... don't want to go back and forth on audience

SM: think primary audience could be software analysts?
... not really management level but also not developer level

Review of WCAG-EM

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0005

SAZ: please review the draft and provide comments
... please indicate issues that must be fixed before publication
... versus comments for future improvement
... thanks Samuel for your comments
... would like to take your suggestion of adding a note to section 5.c and asking for public feedback on it
... think this would be useful, especially since we want the next draft to be tested in practice

SM: yes, that is OK with me