RE: The Problem of Web Based Authoring (revisited)

I hope to have some time to reply on Friday.

Geoff

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Richards [mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday, 9 March 2004 2:53 AM
>To: gdeering@acslink.net.au
>Cc: W3C WAI AU
>Subject: Re: The Problem of Web Based Authoring (revisited)
>
>
>Hi Geoff,
>
>It appears to me that your concern focuses on the way that ATAG v2.0
>Checkpoint 1.1 is applied to web-based authoring tools and,
>specifically, the role that the somewhat outdated requirements of WCAG
>v1.0 might play in determining when this checkpoint has been met.
>
>This is a good point and one that we are trying to address. In the
>current draft, passing WCAG 1.0 is not a normative requirement. The only
>success criteria (normative requirement) for checkpoint 1.1 is that "the
>authoring tool interface must conform to [ISO16071]".
>
>However, although the scope of the ISO document does theoretically cover
>Web-based interfaces (including authoring interfaces), efforts are
>ongoing in the WCAG-WG to update WCAG 2.0 to take better account of Web
>applications. If this work results in a document that is more
>appropriate than the ISO document (and freely available) we might add
>conformance to some level of WCAG v2.0 as a second success criteria
>specific to Web applications.
>
>Of course, this depends on WCAG 2.0 taking into account the specific
>technical issues that you raise in your message.
>
>Does this address your concern or are there additional areas of ATAG
>v2.0 that you think might need to be modified?
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>--
>Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
>Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto
>
>   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>   Phone: 416-946-7060
>   Fax:   416-971-2896
>
>
>
>Geoff Deering wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Regrets for being off list for a bit over a month.  But I have still be
>> thinking about matters I have raised before.  I did begin work
>on writing a
>> long technical article covering items I have raised, but I don't
>think that
>> is a good approach, unless those here want to engage in a technical
>> discussion.
>>
>> This is the crux of my point, that in spirit ATAG is heading in the right
>> direction, but I feel it is seriously flawed by it's naivety at
>addressing
>> technical issues and clarifications.  And I feel these issues of
>technical
>> inadequacies are so serious as to have the effect to alienate
>and loss the
>> developer community, specifically ones that are building web
>based authoring
>> tools.
>>
>> I will just briefly make these points, and if anyone wants to
>discuss them,
>> then I am willing to expand on them and clarify these issues.
>>
>> As I have said before, there is a problem with grouping all
>these guidelines
>> together and applying them generically to all the Authoring Tool
>categories
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040224/#what-auth-tool).
>>
>> First point, "Software Accessibility Guidelines" and WCAG share the same
>> focus and aims, but they are aimed at technically different types of
>> application that run under different programming environments and are
>> therefore subject only to the rules governing those environments, one is
>> aimed at software that operates on APIs, and the other is based on markup
>> render via a user agent.  I believe ATAG has to be very clear
>which is which
>> and technically correct, otherwise the effort put into these
>guidelines will
>> be wasted on the developer community they are aimed at.  To see
>some of my
>> initial points, please refer to;
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2003Dec/0002.html
>>
>> I feel there is need clarify this document so that the right
>guidelines are
>> applied to the correct type of authoring tool.
>>
>> I am also afraid to say that I feel there is a need for a third type of
>> category (1. Software Accessibility 2. Web Content Accessibility
>Guidelines
>> 3. Web Application Accessibility), the problem is that *every" "Web Based
>> Application Tool/ CMS Interface" I have seen does not comply with WCAG1
>> Priority 1.  All of them rely on scripts (Java, JavaScript), many rely on
>> popups for certain functions of the user interface, etc.  I just
>cannot see
>> any of them seeing the benefits of transferring all scripting to
>the server
>> side and trying to become ATAG compliant.  They are all script dependant.
>>
>> I did 2 days of Interwoven Teamsite training a few weeks back, and I just
>> could not see any reason why they would try and comply to the letter of
>> these guidelines.  What is the benefit to any of the CMS developers to
>> follow ATAG, because it will surely kill their product in the general
>> market, it will put them so far behind their competitors.
>>
>> Can anyone else see these issues, or am I a lone voice on this
>list in this
>> regard?
>>
>> Geoff Deering
>>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 03:04:53 UTC