Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

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

<cstrobbe> Question about section 1.1: are evaluation tools in office suites out of scope?

SAZ: looking much better to me
... shorter titles and descriptions
... more to the point

SM: 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 could be combined under a common header
... all these emulate the browser

<samuel> they try to emulate how browser retrieves resources

CV: any evaluation tool emulates the browser
... had them together but decided to be more atomic

SM: emulates retrieval of the content
... similar functionality

SAZ: maybe work with hierarchies

CV: difficult to find a common and accurate heading
... crawling also related to these, for example

SAZ: how about parking this aside for now?
... working with hierarchies might be good but later
... might be good to focus on completeness for now

SM: agree
... missing features where users can add their own tests/checks
... and configuring the way the checks are done
... also other formats for reporting in addition to EARL

<samuel> other reporting values

SM: for example extensions to the core EARL values in Hera tool

SAZ: how is that a feature?

SM: not a new feature, but part of the reporting feature
... intergration with IDEs
... but also tools that integrate with browsers

<samuel> integration with IDEs and CMS already appears, I'm missing integration with browsers

"or extensions in web browsers"

SAZ: maybe an explicit bulleted list will make the items appear more clearly?

CS: are we excluding evaluation tools in office suites in 1.1?
... though later on I see references to PDF and other formats
... is it in or out of scope?

SAZ: certainly not intentionally exlcuding these
... documents often land on the web and thus are part of web development and evaluation
... but must not be side-tracked
... please point out particular wording that seemed exclusive
... maybe break down reporting (2.6) into "report formats" and "report customization"?
... maybe also add "report visualization", such as dashboards etc?
... also think 2.13 seems quite different in tone and approach to 2.2, for example
... might be better to focus on encapsulated technical features that a developer can implement by itself