W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2006

ATAG 2.0 In-Group Checkpoint Review B.1.3 (from GP)

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:23:34 -0400
Message-ID: <1145301814.4443eb363d147@webmail.utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

This is from Greg, who is unable to send to the list (I have contacted WAI 
about this):


----- Forwarded message from Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com> -----
    Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:47:48 -0700
    From: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
Reply-To: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
 Subject: ATAG 2.0 In-Group Checkpoint Review B.1.3
      To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org


In the Current ATAG 2.0 In-Group Checkpoin Review, I have been assigned
Checkpoint B.1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates
content it conforms to WCAG

ATAG Checkpoint B.1.3
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/Overview.html#check-generate-access
-markup> : Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it
conforms to WCAG
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#Relationship-To-WCAG> .
[Relative Priority] (Rationale | Note)

 [GGP Commentary] The language is clear and succint and there is no
problem with insisting that content that is automatically generated
adhere to WCAG. One point of clarification, I assume adherence to WCAG
means to the currently applicable Recommendation and thus superseding
any previous versions of WCAG recommendations which may be in existance.


Techniques for Success Criteria 1 (All markup and content that is
automatically generated by the authoring tool (i.e. not authored "by
hand"
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#def-Authored-By-Hand> )
must always conform to WCAG
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#priority-Relative> .):

 [GGP Commentary] Agreed for the same reasons cited above and with the
same understanding regarding the applicable version of WCAG meaning the
formal Recommendation which is in force at the time and not past
versions or versions which are in draft status.

	Applicability: This success criteria is not applicable to
authoring tools that do not automatically generate markup and content
(e.g. some simple text editors).

 [GGP Commentary] Agreed. No problems with this language.

	Technique B.1.3-1.1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that any action that
the authoring tool takes alone that causes Web Content to be added or
modified has the result of not introducing new contraventions of the
content type-specific WCAG benchmark
<http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-benchmark> . Contravening actions are
allowed when they are specifically requested by the author (e.g. they
choose to insert a specific element by name from a list) or when the
author has failed to properly comply with an information request that
would have prevented the contravention (e.g. ignored a short text label
prompt for an image).

[GGP] Technique B.1.3-1.1 seems fine.

	Technique B.1.3-1.2 [Advisory]: Using prompting to elicit
information from the author (see Checkpoint B.2.1
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#check-prompt-assist-user
> ).

[GGP] Technique B.1.3-1.2 seems fine.

	Technique B.1.3-1.3 [Advisory]: Ensuring that any templates used
by automatic generation processes meet the content type-specific WCAG
benchmark <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-benchmark>  (see Checkpoint
B.1.4
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#check-accessible-preauth
ored> )

[GGP] Technique B.1.3-1.3 I recommend changing the language to read as
follows: Ensuring that any mechanisms involved in the automatic
generation processes result in the production of content type-specific
WCAG benchmark <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-benchmark>  (see
Checkpoint B.1.4
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech2.html#check-accessible-preauth
ored> )

The term template strikes me as ambiguous, in this context it appears to
describe a mechanism one would employ to automatically generate WCAG
compliant content. Whether this mechansim is a template or some other
device ( a configuration wizard perhaps?) is not for us to determine. If
a template were employed, it is likely that a template should conform to
WCAG, but other mechanisms should more than like conform to the
provisions of ATAG. In any event, it is certainly true that whatever
mechanism is used to achieve the result should produce WCAG compliant
content. 

Greg


 

----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 19:25:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT