Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

Continued discussion on requirements for AERT

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements20130408

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Apr/0004.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Apr/att-0004/Scenario_TASAET-W3C-ERWG.html

<Sinarmaya_> I believe that the statement need somehow indicate which way this document is useful for creating the matrix.

<samuelm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Apr/0007.html

<Sinarmaya_> I have another scenario: a MOOC management system that include an accessibility review tool. ¿What do you think about?

<carlos> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

List and describe typical features of web accessibility evaluation tools.

Inform tool developers about typical features of web accessibility evaluation tools and how they could implement them in their tools.

Create a generic descriptive framework to support developers in this classification process to build a profile of an evaluation tool according to its features.

Introduce how to classify tools according to their licensing scheme or to their target user group.

Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools in presenting results to different audiences.

Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand the different types of techniques in WCAG 2.0 and types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual. [Editorial note: to be discussed with Working Group]

Present different workflows for accessibility evaluation and actors that participate in them. [Editorial note: to be discussed with Working Group]