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

draft text for ATAG2.0 Techniques-my action item

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:02:06 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Following is: (1) a very rough draft of introduction text to ATAG2.0 
Techniques Document (my action item from Nov 7 AUWG teleconference), and 
(2) a proposed example techniques format for consideration (I believe 
techniques should to some extent have a consistent format).   Both of these 
proposals are modeled along the lines of the current WCAG approach to 
referencing supporting documentation for WCAG2.0.   Comments 
welcome.   Perhaps we could use the following as a guide when 
reviewing/creating the techniques to accompany the "reworked" 
ATAG2.0?  Notice that the word "conformance" is not used anywhere in the 
text following, to emphasize that these documents are 
informative.    Motivation is partly that we may take advantage if 
appropriate of discussions that have already occurred in the WCAG WG, and 
differ only when we need to..

------------beginning of Introductory Text proposal------

ATAG2.0 Techniques Introduction:

This informative document lists techniques considered by the AUWG to 
support both the (link) normative ATAG2.0 success criteria and authoring 
tools accessibility.   The techniques in this document are just listed, in 
sequence, without any particular ordering or ranking within a particular 

For techniques to support the ATAG2.0 success criteria, (it is a goal that) 
for each ATAG2.0 success criterion, at least one related technique is 
listed that has been determined by the AUWG to be
"sufficient" to be included as a description of how the authoring tool 
meets that ATAG2.0 success criterion (ref. #5 of sec 2.2.2 ATAG2.0 
WD).    Such inclusion does not imply that said description will be 
verified or is verifiable; "sufficient" means that, in the consensus 
opinion of the AUWG, demonstrated successful accomplishment of that 
technique(s) (possibly in combination with other techniques) can be used as 
evidence of satisfaction of that success criterion, in the sense mentioned 
previously.   There is no requirement (nor suggestion implied) to use any 
of these techniques for such purposes.   The purpose of listing these 
techniques is to give additional information (options) for consideration to 
those authoring tool developers that wish their authoring tools to satisfy 
the stated ATAG2.0 success criteria but may be unsure as to how to get 
started in attempting to achieve such satisfaction.

Other techniques (not in this document or known by the AUWG) may also be 
"sufficient" to meet the ATAG2.0 success criterion, in the sense described 
previously.   A technique does not need to be known or documented by the 
AUWG in order to be "sufficient" in meeting ATAG2.0 success criteria, and 
any authoring tool developer can claim any technique (or combination of 
techniques), as sufficient to meet the ATAG2.0 success criteria    The AUWG 
encourages these other techniques to be submitted for possible inclusion in 
this document as "sufficient" techniques in a future version of this document.

In addition to "sufficient" techniques mentioned previously, additional 
advisory techniques or other information could be listed that goes beyond 
what is required by the ATAG2.0 success criterion but may support authoring 
tool accessibility.  These techniques or other
information would be clearly identified as advisory and would be separated 
from any "sufficient" techniques.

  Thus, for
each ATAG2.0 success criterion, there could be two categories of 
techniques:  "sufficient" techniques, and advisory techniques or other 
information.    (**NOTE: Optional?: Each of these categories may have in 
turn two parts: generic (technology-independent) techniques, and 
technology-specific information (techniques).   Generic techniques are 
strategies for authoring tools that are technology-independent, but are 
realized (implemented) in technology-specific techniques applicable to 
combinations of specific authoring tool technologies.**)

In this document, each technique is described as follows:

Technique Title (possibly referring to stated success criterion)
Technologies required by the technique and technology features for which 
the technique is applicable
Description (using -ing language to emphasize their informative nature?)
Testing Information relating to this technique
User Agent Notes
See Also

(NOTE: This sounds like metadata, doesn't it?).    Perhaps we should use 
metadata terms to describe
the techniques.


Technology-Independent (General) Technique for Success Criterion A.0.1

      "Sufficient" Techniques:

       Advisory Techniques and Other Information:

Technology-Specific Techniques for Success Criterion A.0.1

       "Sufficient" Techniques

       Advisory Techniques and Other Information

(NOTE: There may be some redundancy in the previous.. Perhaps 
"technology-independent" and "technology-specific" items can be collapsed 
somehow, as this may be too much?)

---------------------------------End of Introductory Text 

-------------------------------Beginning of "reworked example technique" 

Example of Technique Format (taking "Technique A.1 as an example?)

Title: Technique A.1 (rename to fit applicable success criterion?)
Technologies Required: ?
Description: Following the guidance of ISO16071.  NOTE: May want to 
indicate why this is considered "sufficient" for meeting SC A.1.1?
Examples: taken from ISO16071 points?
Resources: complete reference to ISO16071
Testing information related to this technique: to be provided?
User Agent Notes: Which user agents could support successful accomplishment 
of this technique?
See Also: any other information pertinent to this technique?

-------------------------------end of "reworked example technique" 

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2005 21:02:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:53 UTC