ATAG 2.0 In Group Checkpoint Review B.2.6

Greg,

I'm resending this since it hasn't come through - I will ask the W3C folks
what's up (and I'll ask again about Barry's access to the list while I'm at it).

Cheers,
Jan


----- Forwarded message from Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com> -----
    Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:53:35 -0700
    From: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>

As B.2.6 Currently Reads: 
B.2.6 Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status.
[Priority 3] 
Rationale: This summary will help the author to improve the
accessibility status of their work, keep track of problems, and monitor
progress.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.6

Success Criteria:

1.	The authoring tool must provide an option to view a list of all
known accessibility problems
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Web-Content-Accessibility-Problem>  (i.e. detected by automated
checking or identified by the author) prior to completion of authoring
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Comp-Authoring> . 

Proposed Changes:
 
Priority Change: There seems to be a conflicting priority assignment of
checkpoint B.2.6 and the associated checkpoint, B.2.2
 
B.2.2 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.
[Relative Priority] 
Rationale: Authors may not notice or be able to check
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Checking>  for accessibility problems
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Web-Content-Accessibility-Problem>  without assistance from the
authoring tool.

Note: While automated checking
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Automated-Checking>  and more advanced implementations of
semi-automated checking
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.htm
l#def-Semi-Automated-Checking>  may improve the authoring
experience,this is not required to meet the success criteria for this
checkpoint.

While B.2.2 indicates automated checking is NOT required to meet the
success criteria, B.2.6 indicates the authoring tool MUST provide an
option to view a list of all know accessibility problems (detected by
"automated checking"  or "identified by the author". Not clear if a
simple reminder to authors to "check your work for accessibility" would
be sufficient. 

In Response to ATAG 2.0 Public Draft (and Editor's Draft) Comments:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2006JanMar/att-0027/12_20
05_comment_responses.html 

It was proposed to assign Priority Level 2 to B.2.6, but no
recommendations to harmonize B.2.2 and B.2.6. I would recommend
harmonizing the two, at Priority Level 3, this would have the effect of
not mandating the use of automated checking, which appears to be the
original intent as indicated in B.2.2 but also defining a higher level
of functionality by making the issue more than just a relative
checkpoint.

 
 
Grammar change: To make subject and verb agree, I would recommend
changing the subject from singular to plural and rewriting the rationale
of B.2.6 to read:
 
Rationale: This summary will help authors to improve the accessibility
status of their wrok, keep track of problems, and monitor progress.
 
 
 
 
 
 

----- End forwarded message -----