W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2004

Fw: Proposal: Authoring tools

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:05:44 +0200
Message-ID: <005b01c48c0c$aea79150$0200a8c0@iwars>
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: "Y.P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>

I like Yvette's idea.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Proposal: Authoring tools



Hi list,

I took an action item to propose a simpler formulation for a new section
about authoring tools. See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0389.html for
the
original suggestion by the ATAG working group.

<proposal 1>
Authoring tools

A large part of web content is created using authoring tools. These
tools
often determine how the web content is implemented, by making authoring
decisions directly or by presenting choices to the author. We understand
that the level of accessibility of the web content produced by authoring
tools will depend on the support of the accessibility guidelines by
these
tools, even though we recommend that all authors become familiar with
the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Developers of authoring tools can help to make their tools more aware of
the
Web Accessibility Guidelines by following the #Authoring Tool
Accessibility
Guidelines#. We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to
consider the conformance to the #Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines#
when selecting tools.
</proposal 1>

The texts between ## would be links to the ATAG.

Basically, I re-wrote some sentences to make them shorter and easier to
understand, in some cases using active voice instead of passive. I have
tried not to change the meaning or intentions of the original text.

I used "the way the web content is implemented" instead of "nature of
the
web content" because I think AT do NOT affect the nature of the content
(e.g. a genealogical website versus a gallery website) but only the
implementation of the content.

I deleted the part about the implementation techniques for ATAG being
available, because I think that would be confusing to many of our
audience
and I think AT developers (a secondary audience of our guidelines) will
have
no problems finding the information by following the ATAG link.

A problem I see both with the original proposal and in mine is that it
sounds like we're saying "we recommend that you become familiar with
WCAG
but we understand it if your content doesn't comply if you use a
non-ATAG
AT". That sounds like a large loophole/excuse for people. Perhaps we
should
instead say something like

"We understand that the level of accessibility of the web content
produced
by authoring tools will depend on the support of the accessibility
guidelines by these tools. We recommend that all authors become familiar
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines because this will help in
creating accessible content and some of the guidelines may not be
covered by
the authoring tool."

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 08:06:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:03 GMT