W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Frontpage 2000 Conformance review

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jim Allan <allan_jm@tsb1.tsbvi.edu>
cc: WAI-au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0005091707190.32323-100000@tux.w3.org>
Jim, thanks for the review. I will post it shortly on the reviews page at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/reviews - and announce it to a couple of people who
were looking for such a review.

A few clarification questions...

It doesn't seem that you specified a level of conformance to the relative
priority checkpoints. Was this intentional?

You mention that it conforms to 7.1 and then go on to point out some major
problems - it is not clear what priority the problems are for accessibility,
and what level of conformance to the checkpoint you are claiming.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jim Allan wrote:

  Apologies for the delay.
  
  Front Page 2000 (win98) AU Review
  9 April 2000
  Jim Allan
  Summary
  Front Page 2000 does not comply to the AU Guidelines. For example, it fails
  for Priority 1 checkpoints 6.1 and 7.4. It was accessible to a screen
  reader, with exceptions noted. 
  Priority 1 checkpoints
  Checkpoint 1.1 Ensure that the author can produce accessible content in the
  markup language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1]
  Yes. Allows direct source editing, alternative content input options are
  available within dialog boxes (e.g. for ALT), some TABLE tags (THEAD, TBODY)
  must be manually entered, TABLE SUMMARY must be added manually. Allows
  author to turn off proprietary tags, and advanced technologies (DHTML,
  JavaScript). 
  Checkpoint 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all accessibility information
  during authoring, transformations, and conversions. [Priority 1]
  No. Conversion of table to text loses, header, caption, and summary
  information. When converting from a word-processor format to HTML, headings
  are transformed to plain text with font formatting. Must turn on "preserve
  existing HTML" or symbol insertion (§, é, etc.) generate system font
  symbols, and if entered manually (&eacute;) in HTML view they are converted
  back to system font symbols.
  Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup.
  [Priority 1]
  Yes.
  Checkpoint 3.4 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not
  reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except
  when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
  Yes.
  Checkpoint 6.1 Document all features that promote the production of
  accessible content. [Priority 1]
  No. None found in search of help file.
  Checkpoint 7.2 Allow the author to change the presentation within editing
  views without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1]
  Yes. In WYSIWYG (normal) view - can only use OS system tools to change
  default font-size and font-color. User is allowed to configure font-face.
  In HTML view user can control font-face and tag/attribute color.  Using an
  Intellipoint mouse (wheel), user can change font size.
  Checkpoint 7.3 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and
  object in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1]
  Yes.
  Checkpoint 7.4 Ensure that the editing view allows navigation via the
  structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1]
  No. No outline view, no movement between like elements.
  Relative Priority checkpoints
  Note: These should be assessed by reference to the checkpoints of the Web
  Content Accessibility Guidelines [WCAG10], and may be met at three different
  levels.
  Checkpoint 1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates markup it
  conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10].
  [Relative Priority]   
  No. When inserting images there is no prompt for alternative content (P1 in
  WCAG10). It does not include DOCTYPE at the beginning of your pages unless
  you manually build it in to the default page template (P2 in WCAG10).
  However, dependent upon the author's knowledge of accessibility requirements
  and abilities of the tool; it is capable of producing conforming content.
  Tools  provide NOFRAMES placeholder and generic text . When inserting a
  plug-in (EMBED) dialog box has text entry field for alternative content.
  ("Message for browsers without plug-in support"). Menu options are available
  to insert  table CAPTION, THEAD, TBODY, and SUMMARY must be added manually.
  Manually looking at properties for IMG (after insertion) shows a  text entry
  field for alternative content. Menu selection for applying LABEL for form
  element and associated text label. Checkpoint 1.4 Ensure that templates
  provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
  [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]  
  Yes. Generally, fairly good. Navigation generated by using Themes and Shared
  Borders include ALT for buttons. However, there is abundant use of font size
  rather than structural tags for headings. Form templates do not use LABEL.
  Checkpoint 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative
  information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text
  transcripts for video). [Relative Priority]  
  No. When inserting images there is no prompt for alternative content (P1 in
  WCAG10).
  Checkpoint 3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate
  information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
  Yes. CSS implemented.
  Checkpoint 3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to the Web Content
  Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 4.1 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.
  [Relative Priority]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems.
  [Relative Priority]  
  No. No help available, no validity checking.
  Checkpoint 7.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility
  standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are
  essential to accessibility; Priority 2 for those that are important to
  accessibility; Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility). 
  Yes, when using JAWS 3.5. A few problems were noted. In WYSIWYG (normal
  view), default H1 and H2 text is not spoken (font size is too large for
  JAWS, this is a JAWS problem not FrontPage). With "view tags" on the UL and
  OL tags are not spoken. The tags for IMG and HR are not displayed. When
  creating a new image, in the Image Properties dialog box user cannot tab
  "Image Type" controls. When setting styles, in the Styles dialog box,
  Borders and Shading property sheet, the Border type images are not labeled
  (there is a  visual label), Border Location images are not labeled (there is
  no visual or OS supplied label). All buttons are available from menu
  selections. Keyboard short-cuts are available for most functions. 
  Priority 2 checkpoints
  Checkpoint 2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are
  available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2]  
  For the most part, does use W3C, but also allows proprietary tags (EMBED,
  BLINK, etc.) based on browser version selection. I could not find any
  information about the default or minimum DTD being used. There are also a
  number active elements that can be inserted into a page that I am not as
  familiar with (different types of scripting, ActiveX, ASP, etc.)
  Checkpoint 4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the
  tool. [Priority 2]  
  Yes.
  Checkpoint 5.1 Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring
  practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the
  tool. [Priority 2]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 5.2 Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting Web
  Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] Priority 1 checkpoints are
  among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author. [Priority 2]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally
  integrated part of the documentation, including examples. [Priority 2]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an
  accessible fashion. [Priority 2]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 7.6 Allow the author to search within editing views. [Priority 2]
   
  Yes.
  Priority 3 checkpoints
  Checkpoint 2.3 If markup produced by the tool does not conform to W3C
  specifications, inform the author. [Priority 3]  No. No validity check
  included.
  Checkpoint 3.5 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing
  alternative equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 4.4 Provide the author with a summary of the document's
  accessibility status. [Priority 3]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 4.5 Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is
  misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform
  presentation markup used for style into style sheets. [Priority 3]  
  No.
  Checkpoint 6.3 In a dedicated section, document all features of the tool
  that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 3]  
  No.
  
  Jim Allan, Statewide Technical Support Specialist
  Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
  1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
  voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9453  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
  "Be BOLD and mighty forces will come to your aid." Basil King
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 17:12:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:44 UTC