See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT
CV: did updates according to previous
discussion
... updated references
... added two new sections, 2.3 and 2.4
... would like feedback on 1.3, then section 2
SAZ: is 1.3 "complementary resources" or rather
"background reading"?
... also not sure if 1.2 is needed
CV: can remove it
SAZ: important to set the tone and frame the
document in the abstract and introduction
... but the subsections of the introduction can be done later
... wondering if it is too verbose?
... maybe start with adding all the features with a sentence each, then come
back to expand the sections?
<Sinarmaya_> I have a comment about the 2.2, I think that the typical difference is betwen "propietary" and open source, not about commercial and open source.
SAZ: think the correct term "proprietary" rather than "commercial" (vs "open source")
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements
<Sinarmaya_> An example can be the TAW 1.0 that have had a crawler, but was not commercial.
[[
ability to crawl big web sites or portals
types of web technologies handled by the tool, for instance HTML markup, stylesheets, PDF documents, Flash applications, multimedia, etc.
ability to integrate dynamic content generated via scripting (dynamic modification of the Document Object Model according to the user interaction with the application, etc.)
support for testing APIs like the WebDriver API, for instance
support for standard reporting languages like EARL
support for different accessibility compliance environments in different countries
integration in the web development workflow as a plug-in add-on in different Integrated Development Environments (open source or commercial)
multilinguality and internationalization
etc.
]]
<Sinarmaya_> support for manual review and report generation
SAZ: think start by listing them, then about how to organize them
CV: yes, clusters will emerge
<samuelm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0011.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html
<samuelm> (there was also a followup discussion in the thread I just linked)
<Sinarmaya_> agree
<Sinarmaya_> Maybe this reference have sense: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/harmon.html
<Sinarmaya_> and this one: http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/pol.html
SAZ: think "compliance environments" (aka "configurability of checks") is separate from "localization / internationalization"
SM: should not confuse users by saying that
policies can be different
... but rather that checks can be configured flexibly
<Sinarmaya_> +1 for requirements ;-)
SM: classify features according to
... 1. what is evaluated
... 2. what can be configured
... 3. how is it presented
... might be good to think along the lines of these dimensions
... there may be other dimensions too
<samuelm> sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 fall into the group of what is evaluated
next meeting: 24 July 2013
<samuelm> http://dsai2013.utad.pt/