W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Evaluation Tools List/Database Publication Approval

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: shawn@w3.org,shadi@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2014-10-31 to 2014-11-13.

14 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Support for publishing the Evaluation Tools List user interface

1. Support for publishing the Evaluation Tools List user interface

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
I support publishing the Tools List as it is	6
I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	6
I do not support publishing the Tools List, because of the comments in the comments sections below
I abstain (not vote)	2

Details

Responder	Support for publishing the Evaluation Tools List user interface
Sharron Rush	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	priority: strong / important to be addressed before publication current wording: posted as a GitHub issue suggested revision: posted as GitHhub issue rationale: Wording in intro is awkward and not quite inclusive enough of web apps (even though we define web pages to include apps, it is not clear in context.) Additional edits suggested to filter categories for reasons of clarity and grammatical accuracy. Finally the submission interface appears to not work, but that may just be the GitHub temporary hosting.
Helle Bjarnø	I abstain (not vote)	I have not been active for the last 8 weeks or more and therefore I abstain, but I support the idea of publishing the Tools List.
Vicki Menezes Miller	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	I support the suggested wording of Sharon for changes in the introduction.
Paul Schantz	I support publishing the Tools List as it is
Eric Eggert	I support publishing the Tools List as it is
Wayne Dick	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	The question: The tool supports WCAG 2.0 Leel AA. The tool supports ATAG 2.0
Anna Belle Leiserson	I support publishing the Tools List as it is
Vivienne Conway	I support publishing the Tools List as it is	From looking at the page, it would seem that we have accepted the vendor's own wording. In some cases the grammar is not completely correct, however I presume this is not something the group wants to change.
Kevin White	I support publishing the Tools List as it is
Shawn Lawton Henry	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	* [Not] Allowing people to add filter criteria <https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/15> * Authoring Tools not clear as filter section title <https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/14> * Accessibility of tool (Wayne's in this survey & EOWG discussion on 7 Nov)
Shadi Abou-Zahra	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	#1. [medium] Remove link for the term "web content" in the opening sentence - odd to have this particular term highlighted, and kind of sends people away. See comment below about linking to "Selecting Tools" document for newbies. #2. [strong] Provide a brief explanation of what this page is about - consider such rewording: "Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help you determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. While web accessibility evaluation tools can significantly reduce the time and effort to evaluate websites, no tool can automatically determine the accessibility of websites. This page provides a list of evaluation tools that you can filter to find ones that match your particular needs. <link>Selecting web accessibility evaluation tools</link> provides more background an information." #3. [strong] Link to "Selecting web accessibility evaluation tools" document - for people who are new to accessibility and evaluation. Consider the wording in comment #2, as an example approach. #4. [mild] Remove the sentence "While web accessibility evaluation tools can significantly reduce the time and effort to evaluate websites, no tool can automatically determine the accessibility of websites." - we should link to the "Selecting Tools" doc instead, for people who are new to accessibility and evaluation. #5. [medium] Remove or better position (and rephrase) "Submit an evaluation tool." - Looks a bit odd at the end of that paragraph (I like the button version very much, though). Also, it should be "Provide information about an evaluation tool" or such, especially if it is a text-link (as opposed to a buttony-link) #6. [medium] Switch sentence order from "W3C does not endorse specific products. Information on this page is provided by vendors and others." to "Information on this page is provided by vendors and others. W3C does not endorse specific products." - better flow IMO. #7. [mild] Change "Submit your tool" to "List your tool" or such - "submit your tool" doesn't make sense #8. [medium] Change "X results" to "Showing X tools" - better describe what you mean by "results" (typically associated with search, but there was no search) #9. [strong] Add spacing between selected criteria and "show all tools" button, or, even better, put the button on a separate line so that it is always left aligned - right now it sticks to the end of the last letter of the selected filtering criteria (on my configuration, at least) #10. [mild] Change "Selected Filters:" to "matching the filters:" - then sentence would read "Showing X tools match the filters: bla bla bla" (note the lower caps as well). #11. [mild] Distinguish filtering criteria from other text - to make it easier to scan. For example, add slightly lighter background (and the rounded corners that you so love) around the criteria. #12. [mild] Consider changing "Details" to "Tool features"? - probably for discussion but these are not really "details" as such, though maybe "features" is too jargony? Would be a good link to the features doc, though. #12. [medium] Consider adding link to tool homepage in the description - think that some people may not immediately realize that the heading is also a link. #13. [mild] Do you check the date entry? If so, then maybe the script should reformat the date to DD Month YYYY format, which, AFAIK, is more international (ie. less prone to confusion). #14. [mild] If not already logged as a wishlist item: when a search criteria is selected, the numbers of matching tools should be updated to reflect the current possibilities. That is, when I select "BITV in guidelines, the number of tools in "Asturian" should be 0.
Sylvie Duchateau	I support publishing the Tools List as it is
Jan McSorley	I abstain (not vote)
Andrew Arch	I support publishing the Tools List only with the changes in the comments sections below	Priority: High Rationale: Filters are confusing and need some further clarification - see examples ... Eg. 1. - Licence categories are confusing as they overlap. An enterprise tool could be commercial or open source or even free, but AMP for instance is not listed as 'commercial' and the Funnelback tool is not listed as 'enterprise' (Sitemorse is listed as both). Visolve is listed as both 'free' and 'commercial' with no explanation. Eg. 2. - Automatically checks has overlaps 'Office and PDF' vs 'PDF' - recommend 'office' and 'PDF' as separate categories - if a tool checks both, then both should be included. Eg. 3. - Online Service includes 'server installation', i.e. semi local service rather than online. And where do locally installed applications (like http://www.visionaustralia.org/business-and-professionals/digital-access/resources/tools-to-download/colour-contrast-analyser-2-2-for-web-pages) fit?