Re: Strawman Proposal: ATAG 2.0 a la WCAG 2.0

Kynn,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. It's always good to get a 
fresh perspective.

It would be good to discuss your suggestions during a teleconference. 
Will you be joining the June 2nd teleconference at 4pm. ET? Could you 
present a synopsis of your reviews and suggestions during that call?

Thanks
Jutta

>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 Monday, 12 May 2003 16:50:37 UTC