<ken> quit

<Akhil> Guys, I won't be able to join today. Not keeping well. I will join in the next discussion.

<dmontalvo> scribe: dmontalvo

New Accessibility Evaluation Tools list

Carlos: Great Eric that your team is doing this redesign of the evaluation tools list

[Quick round of intros]

Eric: I work as a professor of inclusive digital design

<Wilco_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/

Eric: This is the existing tools page. With filters on the left, when unfiltered you can see all the tools on the right
... Filters include Langauge, markup, license
... You can add your own tool filling in the form that gets sent to W3C
... They receive it, process it, and then your tool gets added

[Eric shows how the filters work]

Eric: It tells that the list has not been updated for a long time
... People seem to use the page to find the tools, but still need to go outside this space for info
... The current proptotype is in the right
... We did user research

<CarlosD> https://master--wai-evaluation-tools-list.netlify.app/list-of-evaluation-tools/

Eric: We are using this prototype just for testing purpsoes
... It is still not validated.
... We were advised to add ACT Rules as filters
... I am in this call to look for ideas on how we can best add this so that it makes sense to people who is not familiar
... We are still working on updating the prototype
... We also want to simplify the process for updating the info related to your tool, currently it is a difficult process
... Also think what happens if someone who is not the tool owner adds info

Carlos: I would ask people to provide feedback on other aspects of the tool, not just on how to present ACT
... We are interested on the accessibility checks part of the tool filters
... It currently lists stuff that tools can check
... Examples are color contrast, navigation, text alternatives, etc
... Eventually we can think of test that tools make or manual procedures

Eric: The reasons for these checks is that some people are working on the accessibility of the page and may be interested in knowing specifics about accessibility that they need to work on
... Does this work?

Wilco: There might be overlap on what the tools can do. It seems if one can do one thing they may be also able to do other things that are listed here as well

Jenn: Agree. Maybe having an option to select all in the UI would help

Wilco: It is similar to the language. There is an arbitrary list of languages, maybe there should be a combo box where you can type the language. You could do a similar thing here

Eric: In the old version the list is not much longer than this one

Tom: May the languages be related to whether the tool is available in that language?

Wilco: Even so the list can get very long

Joyce: Having trouble getting to the second link that you posted.
... Some developers are looking at
... how to integrate tools into the CI/CD environment

Eric: Just a reminder that we have not currently worked on accessibility yet
... Under scope there are a list of components that can help

Tom: I think the type of tool can help more. Also the type of programming language

Wilco: It gets deeper than that. You also need to look at frameworks, libraries, etc
... I would not be able to express such details.

Joyce: Maybe something that provides a context for you to know what to look for in this list

Eric: We are working on a proposal to help people find the right tool, filter assistant
... It would help you select from the existing filters
... But it is difficult to put it in place
... For every tool we have the tool features. These are described by the tool vendors

Joyce: That is really interesting if tool owners can highlight what the tool is able to do

Eric: There is a bit of room to add more information, but that would depend on the tool vendor
... We cannot do all of that here at the university

Joyce: Some tool to compare based on what you have selected may help

Wilco: I quite like the filter idea about the tool supporting ACT Rules or not
... Then in the details section we may have an ACT section showing how many rules the tool has implemented
... And ideally a link to the implementation report

Joyce: What if we don't put the tools that don't support ACT Rules?

Wilco: That would be controversial. There are tools that still don't support ACT Rules

Joyce: Some sort of promotion about the progress in ACT Rules support would help

Carlos: I am not sure. We should not understand this as a tool-promoting effort
... We need to look at this as a resource that helps people who are looking for the right tool to address accessibility
... I do like the previous suggestion about adding this to the filters and linking to the implementation report

Eric: We could do that. We could have a graphical representation of the level of ACT Rule support and complement it with numbers as well
... Where are these reports?

Wilco: They are going to be on the W3C website

Eric: If we can get that information from the reports in an easy way we can have a look at when the reports are updated

Joyce: Maybe it is percentage instead of number

Carlos: Who would define what 100% is
... Someone would have to check the submitted information

Joyce: Do tool owners know that ACT Rules apply to the rules?

Carlos: They do if they submit an implementation report. Others may not know.

Tom: How does that compare to other guidelines listed?

Wilco: Do we want to also talk about how to get the data into this resource? I would want to have it automatically updated as I update anything on my tool

Carlos: We are addressing this. We had a conversation with Steve and Shawn and we defined the process for updating this. We would need to have a way to relate the submission of the tool with a specific entry on the repository

Eric: We would need this info to be somewhere on a data base or somewhere

Carlos: Ideally when you submit an update for an implementation report the tools list should be updated automatically

Wilco: Is the process that somebody goes to a form to add the tool and then it gets added manually?

Carlos: More less. That would create a PR in the GitHub repo. The person would need to review and approve, and after that it goes to the W3C Staff Contact who has the final say and then the Staff Contact merges the PR

Wilco: Seems fairly tedious. We do multiple releases per week
... The list does not support versions, I guess this is intentional

Eric: We will need to check
... If you are doing multiple releases per week you don't want to fill in the form every single time you release

Carlos: The entry submitter will get the JSON file and then update what needs to be updated and then resubmit the form, but I can see your point for someone that does multiple updates per week

Wilco: We work on a different set of tools. It might depend on the tool
... Also looking at the last updated date it can make the tool look old. A reason for me to update would be to be able to change the last updated date

Eric: Now it picks the date you sent the form
... IF you work on ACT rules, the last updated date would be for example when you last added a rule to the tool
... Some tools are so very old that we are not sure if they should remain on this list
... A lot of things that are now on the filters we don't have information about
... WE may need to ask the tool vendors to update this information, which will effectively change the last updated date

Wilco: The prominence of that date seems to me like an important thing, and it may not need to be
... It would be more relevant to know when the data has changed and what data has changed rather than a single date

Eric: We could put it below the details which would make it less obvious

Wilco: I would appreciate that
... Would it be possible for tool vendors to host that file for themselves so that they can update it by themselves?

Carlos: We need to talk to Shawn about that

Daniel: IT is W3C proccess which is involved in here. Does not depend only on a particular person

Eric: It would be difficult to organize if many tool vendors start updating every month

Wilco: I would like to show when the tool was updated and the version number
... The rest of the data could well be static

Tom: I would agree, version numbers are important, update dates are important, maybe we can handle this via GitHub actions

Wilco: Maybe letting us updating dates and numbers but not text

<Wilco_> scribe: Wilco_

Eric: I got a lot of input. I'll give this back to Vera, Michel and Charlotte. They'll work on it next week.
... I hope to present something new to EO Friday next week.

Carlos: We'll have to schedule a meeting with Shawn to look at process. There is new information to share.

Eric: This is a lot of input. If anyone thinks of any more, just let me know. We'll try it out, test with people and see what happens.
... What we really want is for tool vendors to add their information and keep their info updated.
... For ACT rules it's difficult. We now have a filter "implements ACT rules". But the question is what will you see about the features.
... I like the idea of adding an icon and number. I'll see if we can add a proposal.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/to/at/
Succeeded: s/WilcoP/Wilco:/
Succeeded: s/\.../.../
Succeeded: s/tihs/this/
Succeeded: s/woh is ont/who is not/
Succeeded: s/so timplify/to simplify/
Succeeded: s/available in that tool/available in that language/
Succeeded: s/Unders scope/Under scope/
Succeeded: s/scribe: Wilco/scribe: Wilco_/
Succeeded: s/Sharlotte/Charlotte/
Succeeded: s/Michelle/Michel/
Default Present: Daniel, CarlosD, JenniferC, Tom, Joyce, Pat, Wilco
Present: Daniel, CarlosD, JenniferC, Tom, Joyce, Pat, Wilco
Found Scribe: dmontalvo
Inferring ScribeNick: dmontalvo
Found Scribe: Wilco_
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco_
Scribes: dmontalvo, Wilco_
ScribeNicks: dmontalvo, Wilco_

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)