W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2001


From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 01:38:12 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112020134100.22402-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hi folks,

we have an FAQ (Frequently asked Questions) page that was published to answer
questions about ATAG 1.0

Should we think about updating the page? In thinking about the Wombat draft I
came up with the following thoughts in question and answer form, and in
looking over the existing page I noted that we could probably improve it in a
few areas. This might make it more useful to us, and particularly to new
members or prospective new members.

anyway, the existing page (linked from the Publications section of our home
page) is at http://www.w3.org/2000/02/ATAG-FAQ and the stuff I came up with
about Wombat is as follows

  Why a new version?

Following more implementation experience of ATAG 1.0 (which went to
Recommendation before the phase of Candidate Recommendation was part of the
Process, and did a fairly rudimentary assessment of existing evaluation) it
is clear that there are a few issues that need to be clarified, but which are
best resolved by more than errata-level changes. Further reasons for
proceeding with a draft now are outlined under Why "Wombat"? below.

  Why "Wombat"?

One of the most common implementation experiences was realising that there
were a number of redundancies in the way that WCAG 1.0 requirements were
expressed. This was part of the input that the WCAG group took into account
in deciding to develop WCAG 2.0. ATAG 1.0 refers normatively to WCAG 1.0 for
its requirements on content. Naturally, when WCAG 2.0 is available as a
Recommendation the group would like to release, as soon afterwards as
possible, a new version of the ATAG Recommendation that normatively refers to
WCAG 2.0. In order to do so, particularly to complete a Candidate
Recommendation Process it is therefore important to have the draft and
supporting materials (updates for the "Techniques for Authoring Tool
Accessibility" Note are particularly helpful) prepared as far in advance as
possible. This opens up the possiblity that a new version of ATAG will be
prepared, but there will not be a new Recommendation for WCAG ready. In this
event, the group wanted to keep open the possibility of publishing a 1.X
update, as it felt that it would be a lot clearer if the major version number
was paralell to that of the version of WCAG on which it depends.

  What is new?

* There are some requirements that have been clarified - for example in this
    draft it becomes explicit that conformance can be achieved by tools which
    do not interrupt the workflow of the user, which answer a common question of
    developers implementing the specification.
* There are some small changes in priority - one requirement and some sub
    parts of requirements are reduced in priority.
* This document draws its glossary from the "combined WAI glossary" - as a
    starting point towards having a single glossary from which multiple
    specifications draw definitions.
* Some requirements have been made more explicit through changes to
    checkpoint text.
* All checkpoints now have a statement of the required functionality for
    conformance to the checkpoint, and an associated informative description
    of good implementation beyond the basic requirements

More detailed analysis is available in the changes history

  What is not new?

* At this stage the draft still refers to WCAG 1.0, as the WCAG 2.0 document
    is not yet sufficiently stable to draft a normative dependency.
* This document keeps the same Guidelines, Checkpoints and linked informative
    Techniques, and the same priority and conformance scheme that is used in
    the other WAI Guidelines documents
* There is not yet a draft of the "Techniques for Authoring Tool
    Accessibility" that synchronises it to this draft. Publishing an update
    to the existing Note is the current work item for the group, and
    producing such a synchronised draft is the next one.
* The requirements on implementors are mostly unchanged, and in some cases
    reduced in priority.
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2001 01:38:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC