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

ATAG 2.0 - B.2.1 Checkpoint Review

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:43:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4464F35C.1070805@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>


This is my take on B.2.1. I've tried to leverage some of our wording 
around checking and repair:

[1] Checkpoint text: ok

Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG. 
[Relative Priority]

[2] Rationale: Reworded to be less normative sounding and more explanatory:


The authoring tool should help to prevent the author from making 
decisions or omissions that cause accessibility problems. If *Web 
content accessibility problems* are prevented, less effort is required 
to create content that conforms to WCAG. Different tool developers will 
accomplish this goal in ways that are appropriate to their products, 
processes, and authors.


By supporting the creation of accessible content in ways that are 
appropriate to the workflow and user group of an authoring tool, 
developers can facilitate the use and acceptance of *accessibility 
authoring practices* by authors.

[3] Success Criteria:


Def'n: "dedicated authoring assistance": Authoring tool functions that 
helps the author to create particular *objects* (e.g. image insertion 
dialog, table creation wizard).

SC1: For each potential accessibility problem that is identifiable by 
the checking function (required in checkpoint B.2.2) and for which 
*dedicated authoring assistance* exists *objects* in question, at least 
one of the following must be provided:
(a) instructions, for the author to follow, on how to avoid the 
potential accessibility problem,
(b) a semi-automated mechanism that the author can use to avoid the 
potential accessibility problem, or
(c) an automated repair mechanism.

SC2: Suggest removing since this seems very close to B.3.6 (Ensure that 
any authoring practices demonstrated in repair instructions and 
documentation are accessible. [Priority 3] )


PS: Here's a simplified wording of the old SC1 if we decide to go with that:

SC1: If the *author* or *authoring tool* adds or updates content that 
requires *accessibility information*, then the author must be *informed* 
that this information is required (e.g. via input dialogs, interactive 
feedback, etc.).
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 20:43:46 UTC

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