- From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@mi.madritel.es>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:54:15 +0100
- To: "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, "WAI-AUWG" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <014d01c29c76$904a5620$734225d5@emmanuelle1>
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0¡Very good idea!
Best regards,
Emmanuelle
----- Original Message -----
From: Jan Richards
To: WAI-AUWG
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Making ATAG independent of WCAG version
Hello all,
At our Vancouver F2F, we decided to look at making ATAG20 independent of
the current WCAG version, so that it will remain up to date regardless
of whether WCAG proceeds directly to v2.0 or puts out a v1.0
(Second Edition) first and will remain up to date if and when WCAG puts
out future versions.
I propose the following mechanism for achieving this independence:
(1) In the ATAG20 Guidelines, all instances of "WCAG10" or "WCAG20" in
the definition of Relative Priority and in the checkpoints will be
changed to the more generic "[WCAG]".
(2) Update the ATAG20 Guidelines "References" section (see attached #1).
The added "[WCAG]" section would briefly explain that ATAG20 is
independent of WCAG version and include a link to a new Note:
"References to WCAG" (see attached #2).
(3) The "References to WCAG" Note is a short document that the AUWG
would update each time a new version of WCAG comes out. It would have
sections for each version of WCAG. Within these sections, are
sub-sections that explain (1) how to interpret "ATAG20 Relative
Priority" for that version of WCAG and (2) which WCAG checkpoints in
each version are applicable for each ATAG20 Relative Priority
checkpoint.
(5) While the separate ATAG20 implementation techniques would be needed
for each version of WCAG (i.e. ATAG20 Implementation Techniques for
WCAG 1.0, ATAG20 Implementation Techniques for WCAG 2.0, etc.), these
documents are likely to be largely similar to one another.
Please send questions or comments to the list.
--
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto
Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Web: http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/~jan/jan.html
Phone: 416-946-7060
Fax: 416-971-2896
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. References
[WCAG]
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines". The AUWG recommends using the most up to date version of WCAG to determine conformance for the Relative Priority checkpoints in ATAG20. For more information, see "ATAG 2.0 References to WCAG" (W3C Note - Working Draft).
Other References
[ATAG10]
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.
[ATAG20-CHECKLIST]
Not available.
[ATAG20-TECHS]
" Implementation Techniques for Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines 2.0," Jutta Treviranus, Charles McCathieNevile, Jan Richards, Matt May. Note: This document is still a working group draft.
[CONFORMANCE]
"Conformance icons for ATAG 1.0". Information about ATAG 1.0 conformance icons is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10-Conformance.
[CSS1]
" CSS, level 1 Recommendation ," B. Bos and H. Wium Lie, editors., 17 December 1996, revised 11 January 1999. This CSS1 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111. The latest version of CSS1 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1. Note: CSS1 has been superseded by CSS2. Tools should implement the CSS2 cascade in particular.
[CSS2]
" CSS, level 2 Recommendation ," B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs, editors., 12 May 1998. This CSS2 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512. The latest version of CSS2 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2.
[HTML4]
"HTML 4.01 Recommendation," D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, editors., 24 December 1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224. The latest version of HTML 4 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.
[MATHML]
"Mathematical Markup Language," P. Ion and R. Miner, editors., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
[RDF10]
"Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification," O. Lassila, R. Swick, editors. The 22 February 1999 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.
[SVG]
"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification (Working Draft)," J. Ferraiolo, editor. The latest version of the SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.
[UAAG10-TECHS]
"Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Gunderson, and I. Jacobs, editors. The latest version of Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/.
[WCAG20]
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft)," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and J. White, editors. The latest version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Note: This document is still a working draft.
[XML]
"The Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0," T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, editors., 10 February 1998. This XML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210. The latest version of the XML specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.
For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATAG 2.0 References to WCAG
Working Draft [Day Month Year]
This version:
???
Latest version:
???
Previous version:
???
Editors:
Jutta Treviranus - ATRC, University of Toronto
Jan Richards - University of Toronto
Matt May - W3C
Copyright ©2002 W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this document
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the W3C.
This is a Public Working Draft of a document that defines the RelativePriority checkpoints in ATAG 2.0 (now a working draft) will refer to the various versions of WCAG.
Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org.
For information about the current activities of the working group, please refer to the AUWG home page. This page includes an explanation of the inter-relation of each document as well as minutes and previous drafts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
a.. Status of this document
b.. Table of Contents
c.. 1. "WCAG" in ATAG 2.0
d.. 2. Versions of WCAG
a.. WCAG 2.0 - W3C Working Draft
b.. WCAG 1.0 - W3C Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "WCAG" in ATAG 2.0
The Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (ATAG20) refers to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) without specifying a version number. This allows ATAG 2.0 to remain in effect as new versions of WCAG are released.
The purpose of this document is to provide a bridge between ATAG 2.0 and the most current version of WCAG. This includes:
1.. Scheme for determing conformance of Relative Priority ATAG 2.0 checkpoints.
2.. Links to techniques for Relative Priority ATAG 2.0 checkpoints.
Note: When performing an ATAG 2.0 conformance assessment for an authoring tool, you must always specify the version of WCAG that was used to determine conformance of the Relative Priority ATAG 2.0 checkpoints.
2. Versions of WCAG
WCAG 2.0 - W3C Working Draft
Relative Priority Scheme:
WCAG 2.0 establishes four conformance levels for each of its checkpoints: not met, minimum (most important requirements met), level 2 and level 3 (least important requirements met). The ATAG 2.0 relative priority level reflects this as follows:
a.. Relative Priority 1: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least the minimum level.
b.. Relative Priority 2: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least level 2.
c.. Relative Priority 3: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least level 3.
WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint Applicability to ATAG 2.0 Relative Priority Checkpoints:
ATAG 2.0 Relative Priority Checkpoints WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint Applicability
@@Proposed by JR@@
2.5 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it conforms to the WCAG.
(ATAG Techniques for 2.5)
All WCAG 2.0 checkpoints. (WCAG Techniques)
2.6 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to WCAG.
(ATAG Techniques for 2.6) All WCAG 2.0 checkpoints. (WCAG Techniques)
3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). a.. 1.1: For all non-text content that can be expressed in words, provide a text equivalent of the function or information the non-text content was intended to convey. (WCAG Techniques for 1.1)
b.. 1.2: Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent presentations. (WCAG Techniques for 1.1)
c.. 1.6: Provide information needed for unambiguous decoding of the characters and words in the content.
d.. 4.2: Supplement text with non-text content.
e.. 4.3: Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information with summaries and definitions.
f.. 5.4: Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an accessible alternative.
3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. a.. 1.3: Make all content and structure available independently of presentation.
b.. 1.4: Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning, and labels.
c.. 2.2: Allow users to control any time limits on their reading, interaction or responses unless control is not possible due to the nature of real-time events or competition.
d.. 3.1: Provide structure within content.
3.5 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. All WCAG 2.0 checkpoints.
3.6 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. All WCAG 2.0 checkpoints.
3.9 Document the process of using the tool to produce accessible content. All WCAG 2.0 checkpoints.
WCAG 1.0 - W3C Recommendation
Relative Priority Scheme:
WCAG 1.0 establishes three priority levels: Priority 1 (most important requirements), Priority 2 and Priority 3 (least important requirements). The ATAG 2.0 relative priority level reflects this as follows:
a.. Relative Priority 1: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 checkpoints.
b.. Relative Priority 2: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints.
c.. Relative Priority 3: The ATAG 2.0 checkpoint satisfies all relevant WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint Applicability to ATAG 1.0 Relative Priority Checkpoints:
ATAG 1.0 Relative Priority Checkpoints WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint Applicability
2.5 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it conforms to the WCAG. All WCAG 1.0 checkpoints except for:
a.. WCAG 11.4 (P1) Keep alternative pages synchronized with original pages.
2.6 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to WCAG. All WCAG 1.0 checkpoints except for:
a.. WCAG 11.4 (P1) Keep alternative pages synchronized with original pages.
3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). a.. 1.1 (P1) Provide text equivalent* for non-text elements.
b.. 1.2 (P1) Provide redundant text links* for server-side image map areas.
c.. 1.3 (P1) Provide auditory descriptions* for multimedia.
d.. 1.5 (P3) Provide redundant text links* for client-side image map areas.
e.. 5.3 (P2) Avoid layout tables or provide an alternative equivalent*.
f.. 5.5 (P3) Provide summaries* for tables.
g.. 6.2 (P1) Keep equivalents* for dynamic content up to date.
h.. 6.3 (P1) Ensure pages usable without scripts, applets, programmatic objects. Else, provide equivalent information*.
i.. 6.5 (P2) Ensure dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation*.
j.. 10.4 (P3) Include place-holding text* in edit boxes and text areas.
k.. 12.1 (P1) Title* each generated frame.
l.. 12.2 (P2) Describe* the purpose and relation of frames.
m.. 13.1(P2) Clearly identify the target* of each link.
n.. 13.2 (P2) Provide metadata* to pages and sites.
o.. 13.3 (P2) Provide information* about the general layout of a site.
p.. 13.9 (P3) Provide information* about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages.).
q.. 14.2 (P3) Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations*.
3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. a.. 2.1(P1) Ensure information provided with color is also available without color.
b.. 2.2 (Images: P2, Text: P3) Use sufficient foreground/background contrast.
c.. 3.1 (P2) Use markup rather than images to convey information.
d.. 3.2 (P2) Validate to published formal grammars.
e.. 3.3 (P2) Use style sheets.
f.. 3.4 (P2) Use relative units.
g.. 3.5 (P2) Use header elements.
h.. 3.6 (P2) Use lists and list items properly.
i.. 3.7 (P2) Use quotations properly.
j.. 4.1 (P1) Identify natural language changes.
k.. 4.2 (P3) Specify abbreviation or acronym expansions.
l.. 4.3 (P3) Identify the primary natural language of documents.
m.. 5.1 (P1) Identify data table row and column headers.
n.. 5.2 (P1) Associate data cells and header cells in complex data tables.
o.. 5.3 (P2) Avoid layout tables or provide an alternative equivalent*.
p.. 5.4 (P2) Avoid structural markup in layout tables.
q.. 5.6 (P3) Provide abbreviations for table header labels.
r.. 6.1 (P1) Organize documents to be read without style sheets.
s.. 6.3 (P1) Ensure pages usable without scripts, applets, programmatic objects. Else, provide equivalent information*.
t.. 6.4 (P2) Ensure script and applet event handlers are input device-independent.
u.. 6.5 (P2) Ensure dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation*.
v.. 7.1 (P1) Avoid causing screen to flicker.
w.. 7.2 (P2) Avoid causing content to blink.
x.. 7.3 (P2) Avoid causing movement on the screen.
y.. 7.4 (P2) Avoid periodically auto-refreshing pages.
z.. 7.5 (P2) Avoid redirecting pages automatically. Use server redirects.
aa.. 9.1 (P1) Use client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps.
ab.. 9.2 (P2) Ensure element with own interface are input device-independent.
ac.. 9.3 (P2) Specify logical (device independent) event handlers for scripts.
ad.. 9.4(P3) Create a logical tab order.
ae.. 9.5 (P3) Provide keyboard shortcuts to important elements.
af.. 10.1 (P2) Avoid spawned windows.
ag.. 10.3 (P3) Provide a linear text alternative to tables with text in parallel, word-wrapped columns.
ah.. 11.2 (P2) Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies.
ai.. 11.3 (P3) Include metadata information (e.g., language, content type, etc.)
aj.. 12.2 (P2) Describe* the purpose and relation of frames.
ak.. 12.3 (P2) Divide large blocks of information into manageable groups.
al.. 12.4 (P2) Associate labels explicitly with their controls.
am.. 13.2 (P2) Provide metadata* to pages and sites.
an.. 13.6 (P3) Group, identify, and provide a way to bypass related links.
ao.. 14.1 (P1) Use clearest and simplest language appropriate.
3.5 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. All WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
3.6 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. All WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
3.9 Document the process of using the tool to produce accessible content. All WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 11:00:54 UTC