Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Charter
The mission of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG), part of the WAI Technical Activity, is to develop techniques and resources to facilitate the evaluation and repair of websites with regard to their conformance to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and to facilitate testing across all WAI guidelines and standards also including the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG), User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG), and Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA).
| End date | 30 June 2013 |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Proceedings are Public. Some communications between editors may be member-confidential. |
| Initial Chair | Shadi Abou-Zahra (W3C) |
| Initial Team Contact (FTE %: 10) |
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
| Usual Meeting Schedule | Teleconferences: Weekly Face-to-face: None to twice annually |
Scope
- Completing the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 including its supporting documents, a machine-readable language for reporting test results;
- Promoting the exchange of test results between evaluation, authoring, and quality assurance tools to support the production of accessible web content;
- Maintaining information about tools that assist evaluating the conformance of websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0;
- Coordinating with the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) on updating and potentially expanding the WAI resource Evaluating Web Sites For Accessibility;
- Helping coordinate development of test files and test suites among WAI working groups including:
- Monitor the developments and provide input into the new generation of combined and modularized WAI web accessibility guidelines (WAI 3.0)
Consistent with W3C Process requirements on Task Forces, the ERT WG may form task forces composed of ERT WG participants or join other W3C task forces to carry out assignments when under the chartered scope of ERT WG. Any such task force must have a work statement (including objectives, communication, participation, and leadership) that has been announced on the ERT WG mailing list, approved by the ERT WG, and is available from the ERT WG home page. ERT WG task forces should produce requirements documents that outline the scope and expectations for work. Task forces may set up separate teleconferences and hold face-to-face meetings per the W3C process and with the approval of the ERT WG.
Success Criteria
- Completion and maintenance of the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0, including its supporting documents;
- Availability of software tools that implement Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0, including its supporting documents;
- Availability of evaluation tools that support the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0;
- Completion of the WCAG 2.0 Test Samples Repository for web accessibility evaluation tool developers;
- Requirements analysis for an accessibility test description metadata format to complement EARL 1.0.
Deliverables
W3C Technical Reports
- Requirements for the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 as a Working Group Note
- Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema as W3C Recommendation
- Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide (working title) as a Working Group Note
- HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0 as a Working Group Note
- Representing Content in RDF 1.0 as a Working Group Note
- Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0 as a Working Group Note
Other Deliverables
- Maintaining an Issues List for EARL 1.0
- Maintaining information about implementations for EARL 1.0
- Maintaining the WAI database of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
- Improving and extending the WCAG 2.0 Test Samples Repository
- Contributing to the WAI resource Evaluating Web Sites For Accessibility
Milestones
| Note: The group will document significant changes from this initial schedule on the group home page. | |||||
| Specification | FPWD | LC | CR | PR | Rec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema | N/A | Q2 2010 | Q4 2010 | Q3 2011 | Q1 2012 |
Timeline View Summary
- Q3 2010
- Process comments from W3C Last Call Working Draft publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
- Process comments from W3C First Public Working Draft publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide
- Process comments from W3C Working Draft publication of HTTP Vocaulary in RDF 1.0
- Process comments from W3C Working Draft publication of Representing Content in RDF 1.0
- Process comments from W3C Working Draft publication of Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0
- Q4 2010
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema as a W3C Candidate Recommendation
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide as an updated W3C Working Draft
- Publish HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Representing Content in RDF 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note
- Q1 2011
- Process comments from W3C Candidate Recommendation publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
- Process comments from W3C Working Draft publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide
- Q2 2011
- Process comments from W3C Candidate Recommendation publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
- Process comments from W3C Working Draft publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide
- Q3 2011
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema as a W3C Proposed Recommendation
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide as a W3C Working Group Note
- Publish HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Representing Content in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Q4 2011
- Process comments from W3C Proposed Recommendation publication of Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
- Q1 2012
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema as a W3C Recommendation
- Publish Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Publish HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Representing Content in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Publish Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0 as an updated W3C Working Group Note
- Q2 2012
- Track issues and carry out post-publication maintenance for EARL 1.0
- Q3 2012
- Track issues and carry out post-publication maintenance for EARL 1.0
- Q4 2012
- Track issues and carry out post-publication maintenance for EARL 1.0
- Q1 2013
- Publish Errata for Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note
Dependencies
W3C Groups
- WAI Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)
- Coordinating on development of the WAI resource Evaluating Web Sites For Accessibility
- WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG)
- Coordinating on the development of test files and test suites for WCAG 2.0.
- WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG)
- Coordinating on the development of test files and test suites for ATAG 2.0.
- WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG)
- Coordinating on the development of test files and test suites for UAAG 2.0.
- WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group
- Coordinating on the development of test files and test suites for WAI-ARIA.
ERT WG also intends to liaise with the following W3C Groups for the development of EARL 1.0 and its supporting documents:
- Semantic Web Interest Group (SWIG)
- To follow best practices in RDF and other semantic Web technologies.
- Protocol for Web Description Resources Working Group (POWDER WG)
- To coordinate on the compatibility of the EARL and POWDER formats.
Furthermore, Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group expects to follow these W3C Recommendations:
External Groups
- Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
- Ensure the proper usage of the Dublin Core terms.
- The Friend of a Friend (FOAF) Project
- Ensure the proper usage of the FOAF terms.
- The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
- Coordinate on expressing HTTP terms in RDF format.
Participation
To be successful, the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group is expected to have 5 or more active participants for its duration. Effective participation to Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group is expected to consume 4 hours per week for each participant. Participants of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group will also allocate the necessary resources for building Test Suites for each specification.
Participants are reminded of the Good Standing requirements of the W3C Process.
Communication
This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing list [email protected] (archive).
Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group home page.
Decision Policy
As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.
Patent Policy
This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (5 February 2004 Version). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis.
For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation.
About this Charter
ERT WG was originally chartered in 1998 and has been rechartered two times since then. This charter represents a continuation of the work done under the previous charters: charter of June 1998, charter of June 2001, and charter of January 2005.
This charter for the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group has been created according to section 6.2 of the Process Document. In the event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.
Please also see the previous charter for this group.
Shadi Abou-Zahra and Judy Brewer
Copyright© 2010 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved.
$Date: 2010/08/23 19:34:28 $