Hi Jan,
 
I will be on today's call. Also FYI , (no action required, just letting you know I submitted my analysis for B.2.6)


From: Greg Pisocky
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 1:45 PM
To: 'w3c-wai-au@w3.org'
Subject: ATAG 2.0 In Group Checkpoint Review B.2.6

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 (i.e. detected by automated checking or identified by the author) prior to completion of 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 for accessibility problems without assistance from the authoring tool.

Note: While automated checking and more advanced implementations of 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_2005_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.