W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: SV: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:07:55 -0500
Message-Id: <p0602040abe131c85150e@[142.150.154.125]>
To: Sören Hansson <Soren.Hansson@ho.se>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Sören,
Thank you for reviewing the document. Input and 
support from stakeholder groups such as yours is 
very important in developing this document.

Jutta

At 2:34 PM +0100 1/17/05, Sören Hansson wrote:
>Comments, on Last Call Working Draft of 
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 
>from the Swedish National Accessibility Centre 
>at the Office of the Disability Ombudsman by 
>Sören Hansson.
>
>Comments on the set questions
>1) We believe this draft ATAG 2.0 includes the 
>features that are necessary in an authoring tool 
>that is accessible and that supports authoring 
>of accessible content.
>We also believe that the priorities of the checkpoints are appropriate.
>
>2) We are sure that this draft ATAG 2.0 is 
>easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, but we have 
>no comment on if the document can be applied to 
>a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0.
>
>3) It is too early to say if the ATAG 2.0 
>Working Draft reached the right balance between 
>giving developers freedom to work creatively to 
>meet the guidelines, while at the same time 
>developing objective success criteria for each 
>checkpoint. Let's try it.
>
>4) It is reasonable to refer to the accessibility standard, ISO 16071.
>
>5) We believe that it is a useful approach and 
>that it is explained adequately in the document 
>that authoring tool makers who claim conformance 
>to ATAG must declare in their conformance 
>statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 
>1.0 and/or WCAG 2.0.
>
>We have no other comments.
>
>Best regards
>Sören Hansson
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Postal address:
>Office of the Disability Ombudsman
>National Accessibility Centre
>Sören Hansson
>Box 49132, SE-100 29 Stockholm, Sweden
>Visitors´ address: S:t Eriksgatan 44, 3 tr.
>E-mail: soren.hansson@ho.se
>Phone: +46 8 6930367 or +46 70 2802925
>Text phone: +46 8 21 39 39,
>Fax: +46 8 20 43 53
>Website: www.ho.se
>
>
>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>Från: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] För Judy 
>Brewer
>Skickat: den 7 december 2004 06:18
>Till: WAI Interest Group
>Ämne: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft 
>of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
>
>
>Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:
>
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) has reached Last
>Call Working Draft status. It will be under review until 18 January 2005.
>Information on the document and how to comment follows. The document is
>available at:
> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
>
>WHAT IS ATAG 2.0?
>
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series
>of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility
>Initiative (WAI). The other guidelines in this series include the Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility
>Guidelines (UAAG).
>
>ATAG 2.0 provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower
>barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring
>tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by
>providing an accessible authoring interface to authors with disabilities,
>as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible
>Web content by all authors.
>
>WHAT DOES "LAST CALL" MEAN?
>
>A Last Call Working Draft announcement means that the Working Group
>believes that it has satisfied its technical requirements and dependencies
>with other W3C Working Groups. The Working Group believes that the Working
>Draft has stabilized. It seeks a broad review of ATAG 2.0 during this
>period, and expects to request advancement to Candidate Recommendation
>(where the focus of review will be on implementation testing) after this
>Last Call review is completed. More information on the W3C Process is
>available at:
>          http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>
>HOW CAN I COMMENT?
>
>Please send comments to the following address by 18 January 2004. Note that
>this is an extension from the deadline for comments which is listed in the
>document:
>          <mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>w3c-wai-au@w3.<mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>org
>A public record of comments is available at:
> 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>au/
>Review and send comments on the following Last Call Working Draft:
> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
>You may find the following overview helpful for context:
>          http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag
>In addition, an updated Working Draft of a supporting document,
>Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0, is available for review, though it
>is not in Last Call status:
>          http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20041122/
>
>The Working Group is particularly interested in discussion of the following
>questions:
>
>    1. Does this document include the features that you think are necessary
>in an authoring tool that is accessible and that supports authoring of
>accessible content? Are the priorities of the checkpoints appropriate?
>
>    2. Is this document easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, and can it be
>applied to a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0?
>          ( http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 )
>
>    3. Has the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft reached the right balance between
>giving developers freedom to work creatively to meet the guidelines, while
>at the same time developing objective success criteria for each checkpoint?
>
>    4. This document references another accessibility standard, ISO 16071,
>which provides guidelines for software and operating system accessibility.
>Unlike W3C, ISO charges a fee for its documents. In this case, the document
>costs 110 Swiss francs, or about US$90. Is it reasonable to reference this
>document?
>
>    5. Authoring tool makers who claim conformance to ATAG must declare in
>their conformance statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 1.0
>and/or WCAG 2.0. Is this a useful approach? Is this explained adequately in
>the document?
>
>WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE LAST WORKING DRAFT?
>
>Since the last Working Draft of ATAG 2.0, the following changes have been
>made:
>
>    - References to specific sections of the ISO 16071 software
>accessibility guidelines have been added.
>    - Old Checkpoints 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have been merged into a New
>Checkpoint 2.1.
>    - Checkpoint 3.4 (care reusing generated alternate content) has been
>raised to Priority 1.
>    - Checkpoint 3.8 (features related to accessibility) has been lowered to
>Priority 3.
>    - New Checkpoint 3.9 (Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible
>authoring) has been added.
>    - Checkpoint 4.1 has been reworded and moved to New Checkpoint 4.3.
>    - Wording of checkpoints have been modified to be more easily testable.
>    - Checkpoint success criteria, conformance level information, and
>glossary terms are much more detailed.
>
>NOTE: This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful
>to avoid cross-postings.
>
>Thank you in advance for your review.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt May, Team Contact for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
>Working Group
>Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C
>
>
>--
>Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
>32 Vassar Street
>Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 20:09:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:04 GMT