See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements20130211.html
KV: some requirements from the accessible project
... we defined some requirements for evaluation tools
CV: is there documentation?
KV: yes, lts
CV: please provide them
SAZ: these requirements are for the document to be developed, rather than the end results
KV: we developed requirements that may be useful herer
SAZ: the overall goal of this work is to provide
guidance for evaluation tool developers on how they can support WCAG 2
... the question for now is how this guidance will look like
KV: i suppose it will include examples and use cases?
SAZ: that's for us to decide
... not sure should be "complement" to WCAG-EM
... maybe just support it
... will we define the workflow for tools
CV: nightmare for tool developers when they don't
understand where in the workflow their tools fit in
... can explain typical scenarios of workflows to show where tool support
comes in
SM: could be useful if we can support different
types of workflows
... can not prescribe a single one
<samuelm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php#relate
SM: no guidelines for evaluation tools
... not trying to develop guidelines but to fill a gap that ATAG does not
provide
... not a set of requirements but a set of features that these tools could
have
... framework of potential functionality
... from which developers can select which they want to implement
... not fully fledged guidelines prescribing what tools must do
... but giving guidance on what can be done
... are we planning a Recommendation or a Note?
SAZ: Note is the current plan
KV: can you give an example of what a workflow
is?
... is it like the steps defined in WCAG-EM?
CV: did not mean to describe the different
workflows
... but how evaluation tools fit into these workflows
... there are different audiences of evaluation tools
... with different roles and responsibilities
... the thought was to describe some of these
KV: wondering what we can provide as a technical
Note that would benefit tool developers
... we talk about WCAG 2, workflows, and such
... but not clear what exactly we will provide
... probably need to analyze state of the art of what tools provide
... are we going to support WCAG 2? WAI-ARIA?
... still unclear what this document will provide
... also the scenarios are not very clear
... especially the second does not say what we will provide
... are we going to explain how tools implement WCAG 2 techniques?
CV: don't think we are aiming to provide an interpretation of WCAG 2
KV: but you have in the table of contents how to implement WCAG 2 and its techniques
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0003.html
SAZ: like the idea of listing tool features
... suggested something similar
... could have introduction describing overall workflow
CV: could be a very long list
SAZ: will need to do a cut off
... could try to be technology-agnostic
... like saying "a tool could automatically detect images without text
alternative"
CV: might not be a very practical document
... will be very theortical
... need to talk about the checks if we want to address the developers of
evaluation tools
SM: going into the techniques level is too much
detail
... on the other hand staying at the SC level may be too high
... suggest staying technology-agnostic
... could describe the functionality without going into the specific
implementation details
... also not to relate specifically to HTML vs WAI-ARIA
... to stay away from the implementation details
... provide techniques that are not technology specific
... not a 1:1 correspondence between our guidance and the techniques
... also suggest to group these guidances into profiles for tools
... for example focused tools
... or tools that are specific to WAI-ARIA
SAZ: we are talking about techniques but not in
WCAG2 terminolofy
... more about functional description
... features that tools could provide
... also the profiles idea may address the concern about where tools fit into
the evaluation process
CV: like the idea of profiles too
... want to focus the audience as soon as possible
... don't want to go back and forth on audience
SM: think primary audience could be software
analysts?
... not really management level but also not developer level
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2013Feb/0005
SAZ: please review the draft and provide comments
... please indicate issues that must be fixed before publication
... versus comments for future improvement
... thanks Samuel for your comments
... would like to take your suggestion of adding a note to section 5.c and
asking for public feedback on it
... think this would be useful, especially since we want the next draft to be
tested in practice
SM: yes, that is OK with me