W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2003

Strawman Proposal: ATAG 2.0 a la WCAG 2.0

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 23:49:27 -0700
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-Id: <6080FAAC-81EA-11D7-9C7C-000393D9E692@idyllmtn.com>


Sometimes when looking at these kinds of things, it's helpful to toss
everything up in the air and reshuffle the parts back into a new
order.

Therefore, on the heels of my review of ATAG 2.0 (posted earlier
to this list) comes a reshuffling of ATAG to parallel the structure 
being
developed in the WCAG 2.0 draft.

By using the same structure in WCAG and ATAG (as done in 1.0), we
can make things easier for developers to understand -- especially as
ATAG depends on WCAG in a number of ways, so all readers of
ATAG will be familiar with WCAG's structure.  This is not to say that 
the
current structure is poor or should be replaced, nor does this strawman
proposal intend to denigrate the work of those who have worked on
developing the guidelines document before now! :)

Attempting to emulate the structure of WCAG in ATAG led to some
interesting results.  ATAG 2.0-20030314 checkpoints fell quite
naturally into the three-tiered structure of WCAG, simplifying the
number of checkpoints to twelve.  Meanwhile, Guideline Four
simply ceased to exist, becoming integrated into the other three
checkpoints.

Guideline One had the clearest parallels with WCAG 2, as the five
WCAG guidelines (perceivable, operable, navigable, understandable,
and robust) helped to clarify the specific checkpoints in ATAG 2.


Well, enough build-up -- here you go, the strawman proposal.  Feel
free to rip it to shreds.  Note also that I changed some things around
in wording; none of this is anything I'm wedded to.



GUIDELINE 1:  Ensure that the tool itself is accessible


   1.1  Ensure that the authoring interface is perceivable.


     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Appropriate operating system standards regarding 
accessibility information encoded in user interface objects are 
followed.
       2.  All non-text user interface components are properly labeled.


     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The tool allows the author to choose from a selection of user 
interface designs or skins.


     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  The tool can be configured to use author-provided user 
interface components or skins.


     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       1.  The tool may provide self-voicing capabilities.


   1.2  Ensure that the content is perceivable.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Appropriate operating system standards regarding 
accessibility information encoded in user interface objects are 
followed.
       2.  The tool allows the author to configure the appearance of the 
content without affecting the document markup.


     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The tool can be configured to use an author-provided style 
for displaying the content.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at 
Level 3 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       1.  The tool may provide self-voicing capabilities.


   1.3  Ensure that the authoring interface is operable.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Appropriate operating system standards regarding access 
shortcuts are followed.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  All functions of the problem are accessible via access 
shortcuts.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at 
Level 3 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


   1.4  Ensure that the authoring interface is navigable.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  The authoring interface allows the author to move 
sequentially and nonsequentially through the content.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The authoring interface enables accessible navigation of 
editing views via the document structure.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at 
Level 3 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


   1.5  Ensure that the authoring interface is understandable.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Documentation is provided in an accessible format which 
conforms with the minimum level of WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  Documentation is provided in an accessible format which 
conforms with the second level of WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  Documentation is provided in an accessible format which 
conforms with the third level of WCAG.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       1.  Contextual help is provided for all functions of the tool.


   1.6  Ensure that the authoring interface is robust.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  The authoring interface enables accessible editing of all 
element and object properties.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The authoring interface enables the author to edit the 
structure of the document.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at 
Level 3 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


GUIDELINE 2:  Ensure that the tool is designed to produce accessible 
content


   2.1  Support accessible markup languages or formats.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Available and appropriate W3C Recommendations are supported.
       2.  All accessibility information is preserved during 
transformations and conversions.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The author can preserve markup which is not recognized by the 
tool.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  The latest versions of W3C Recommendations are supported by 
the tool.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       1.  The tool may allow the author to add additional languages or 
formats (e.g. via schema or DTD).


   2.2  Ensure that any markup produced by the tool is valid and 
accessible.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Markup which the tool automatically generates is valid for 
the language(s) being used.
       2.  Pre-authored content for the tool is valid for the 
language(s) being used.
       3.  Markup which the tool automatically generates conforms with 
the minimum level of WCAG.
       4.  Pre-authored content for the tool conforms with the minimum 
level of WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  Markup which the tool automatically generates conforms with 
the second level of WCAG.
       2.  Pre-authored content for the tool conforms with the second 
level of WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  Markup which the tool automatically generates conforms with 
the third level of WCAG.
       2.  Pre-authored content for the tool conforms with the third 
level of WCAG.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


   2.3  Ensure that the author can produce accessible content.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  The author is able to generate content which can conform with 
all levels of WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at 
Level 2 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at 
Level 3 if:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


GUIDELINE 3:  Support the author in the production of accessible content


   3.1  Actively assist the author in creating accessible content.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  The authoring tool suggests accessible authoring practices 
which satisfy the minimum level of WCAG.
       2.  The authoring tool prompts the author for 
accessibility-related information when necessary.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The authoring tool suggests accessible authoring practices 
which satisfy the minimum level of WCAG.
       2.  The authoring tool prompts the author for 
accessibility-related information when necessary.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  The authoring tool suggests accessible authoring practices 
which satisfy the minimum level of WCAG.
       2.  The authoring tool prompts the author for 
accessibility-related information when necessary.
       3.  Functionality is provided for managing, editing, and reusing 
alternate equivalents for content.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


   3.2  Allow the author to identify and correct accessibility errors.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  The authoring tool identifies content in possible violation 
of the minimum level of WCAG.
       2.  Appropriate assistance or guidance is offered to correct the 
accessibility problems.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  The authoring tool identifies content in possible violation 
of the second level of WCAG.
       2.  Appropriate assistance or guidance is offered to correct the 
accessibility problems.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  The authoring tool identifies content in possible violation 
of the third level of WCAG.
       2.  Appropriate assistance or guidance is offered to correct the 
accessibility problems.
       3.  The author is able to easily deploy these features of the 
authoring tool.
       4.  These features are integrated into the overall look and feel 
of the tool.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       1.  The authoring tool can be configured to provide the author 
with a summary of the document's accessibility status.

   3.3  Promote accessible practices in the documentation.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at the 
Minimum level if:

       1.  Features of the tool which promote the production of 
accessible content are documented.
       2.  The process of using the tool to produce accessible content 
is documented.
       3.  Examples in the documentation conform to the minimum level of 
WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at 
Level 2 if:

       1.  Examples in the documentation conform to the second level of 
WCAG.

     The authoring tool will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at 
Level 3 if:

       1.  Examples in the documentation conform to the third level of 
WCAG.

     The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this 
particular dimension:

       (Presently no additional criteria for this level.)


WHERE ARE THEY NOW?


This shows how existing checkpoints in the 3/14/03 ATAG 2.0 draft 
become success criteria in this proposal.

ATAG 2.0 (3/14/03)  This Proposal

1.1                 1.1 (minimum), 1.2 (minimum), 1.3 (minimum)
1.2                 1.6 (minimum)
1.3                 1.6 (second)
1.4                 1.2 (minimum)
1.5                 1.4 (second)
1.6                 1.4 (minimum)
2.1                 2.1 (minimum, second, third)
2.2                 2.2 (minimum)
2.3                 2.3 (minimum)
2.4                 2.1 (minimum)
2.5                 2.2 (minimum, second, third)
2.6                 2.2 (minimum, second, third)
2.7                 2.1 (second)
3.1                 3.1
3.2                 3.2 (minimum, second, third)
3.3                 3.2 (minimum, second, third)
3.4                 --> technique, really
3.5                 3.1 (third)
3.6                 3.2 (third)
3.7                 3.3 (minimum)
3.8                 3.3 (second)
4.1                 3.1 (minimum, second, third), 3.2 (minimum, second, 
third)
4.2                 3.1 (minimum, second, third), 3.2 (minimum, second, 
third)
4.3                 3.1 (minimum, second, third), 3.2 (minimum, second, 
third)
4.4                 3.3 (minimum, second, third)



--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                     http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain                http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours                       http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog                      http://blog.kynn.com/iae
Shock & Awe Blog                           http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 02:45:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:02 GMT