Evaluation tools/Comments

From Education & Outreach

Resolved questions

  1. Do we need a “Accessibility information: None provided” if vendors haven’t provided such information? (Raised by Sharron on Github)
    • Question is what we do with the tools we already have and that don’t have such information provided. --Eric Eggert (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I assume that we'll re-contact the tools we have once we settle on all the open issues. So the question is what will we show when they leave that field blank? {Shawn}
      • Maybe not even display "Accessibility information" unless it is provided? {Andrew}
      • RESOLUTION: Display „Accessibility information: (none provided)“ if no information is provided. --Eric Eggert (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. “Sorry, I know this was closed but I have a question. You said that "filter categories were reduced and filters consolidated." Will consolidation and reduction of newly added filters need to be done periodically? Do we have a process for that?“ (Raised by Sharron on Github)
    • No, this was a one-time thing, I don’t expect us to do this again. --Eric Eggert (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's a broader question. At one point it was set up so people could add filter options. Have we decided they can't do that? Or how will it be handled? {Shawn}
      • RESOLUTION: Shadi (and Eric) will decide on a case by case basis and may consult EO if something is unclear. --Eric Eggert (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes made Dec 2nd, 2014

  1. Added a link and URI to the end of every description

Changes made Nov 26th, 2014

  1. Reduce filters and make the rest easier to parse, relates to (Not) Allowing people to add filter criteria
    • Filter categories were reduced and filters consolidated
  2. Link to accessibility information of the tools, take a look at the implementation. (brought up by Wayne in EOWG + discussed Nov 14th)
  3. Permalinks have been added
  4. Added borders to the columns in the details section
  5. Added a link (called Link) to the end of every description AND the URL to the details section, as the very last item
  6. Renamed the “Submit your tool” button to “Add your tool!”

Comments to discuss for November 21th, 2014

see the current version on Github

  1. Submission wording in left column now says “[Submit your tool] to this list.” Other suggestions?
  2. I added multi-column styling for those “Detailed Information” (larger screens only). Do we want to keep it?
  3. Intro:
    • Intro sentence modified as discussed last week
    • Removed links to “web content” and the submission form
    • Added link to “Selecting Eval Tools”.
  4. After renaming “Details” toggle to “Tool Features” this was now renamed to “Detailed Information”. Do we like that change?

[done] Comments to discuss for November 14th, 2014

(Issues: ✓ = addressed, please review)

  1. Accessibility/ATAG/WCAG status of the tools. (brought up by Wayne in EOWG last week and survey) What are the issues with adding this criteria?
  2. (Not) Allowing people to add filter criteria
  3. Intro issues
    1. Text edits to intro: Do we need a sentence like “Human judgement will still be needed.”?
    2. Remove link to “web content” in intro sentence
    3. Rewording intro
    4. Placement/wording of top submission link
  4. Wording/Styling for results status
    1. Show all tools button on a new line
    2. Change styling of filter criteria
  5. Submission wording – Eric made a proposal to resolve this.
  6. Change wording for results
  7. Order of sentences in intro
  8. Change “Details” to “Tool features”?
  9. Text edits to filter criteria
  10. version & release date under details

Background info

EOWG Comments

  • Apologies for the last minuteness of this comment. It just occurred to me would it be good to use rel="nofollow" in the links to the products? I worry about people wanting to be listed just to be given the hefty SEO oomph of w3.org. {Anna Belle, 2014-December-11}
    • We already DO use rel="nofollow" on the links. As far as I’m concerned that is standard W3C practice.--Eric Eggert (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [DONE {Eric, 2014-October-31}] Styling — Styling should match the Tutorials styling e.g. header size, column widths {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
  • Terminology in filters — Similar to the ordering of the filters, need to ensure that the filter terminology is clear or at least (as well?) that contextual help is included. For example, what does 'Page transformation' mean? Would 'Page range checked' be clearer than 'Automatically checks...'.{Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
    • We decided to stick with the category names that previously were on the tool and see what kind of data is provided. Changing headings if we think we need to do so is easy in the future. {Eric, 2014-Oct-31}
  • [DONE {Eric, 2014-October-31}] Selected filter? — It is not necessarily clear what filters are selected. It may be valuable to include selected filters above the results - this may additional help highlight when and how a filter has been applied. {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
  • [DONE {Eric, 2014-October-31}] Tool last modified date — Tool release date is less useful than last modified date {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
  • Clear filters positioning — Clear all filters to be in the filter column. {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
    • Decided to have the show all tools button on the top of the actual list, in conjunction with the “selected filters”. {Eric, 2014-Oct-31}
  • [DONE {Eric, 2014-October-31}] Highlighting changed results — A Yellow Fade type technique may be beneficial to highlight when the filter is applied. Another alternative is to fade out the unmatching items and slide the remainder up. {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
  • [done - fixed] layout bug? — 11 July version has the filters taking up full width and the data underneath. Is that a bug and they're supposed to be side-by-side? I checked in Opera & FF with zoomed low and window wide. {Shawn 11 July 2014}
    • CSS wasn’t loading. I fixed that bug. {Eric, 2014-Jul-12}

Order of the filters?

In what order should the filters be? (If you can think of other categories that are useful, don’t hesitate to mention them as well.)

  • Automatically checks..., Guidelines, Coverage (how much of the Guidelines does this tool cover), Assistance {Kevin, 2014-Jul-21}
  • Usage in 2013. This would require (a) the tool producers sharing use data and (b) trusting that data. The combo seems unrealistic at this point, but maybe we could set a spec for the tool producers to meet by end of 2014 and reorder in early 2015? Those that don't submit data would be at the end of the list in some other order, e.g. alphabetic. The reason I propose this is that having a big laundry list sorted by anything other than some qualitative criterion is comparable to having a library where all the books are sorted by say the title -- and sorting by use data is the easiest qualitative sort I can come up with off the top of my head. {Anna Belle, 2014-Jul-23}
  • My top three would be: Guidelines; Assistance and Automatically checks. {Bim, 2014-Jul-25}

quick fixes & minor points

  • [DONE {Eric, 2014-October-31}] bug — 11 July version is missing background color. {Shawn 11 July 2014}