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

ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: B.1.1

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:59:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4415A4E9.6040204@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org


On the last call I was assigned to review B.1.1 (see message:
Here are my thoughts so far:


Points for Discussion:


1) Checkpoint wording is ok.

2) Due to the amount of confusion surrounding new content types, this 
checkpoint could benefit from re-wording the rationale and adding a 
note. Here is some suggested text.

RATIONALE: The checkpoints in Part B assume that there is nothing 
intrinsic about the content type of the content being authored that 
prevents that *content from being accessible*, which, for ATAG 2.0, 
means content that conforms to WCAG.

NOTE 1: The content type-specific WCAG benchmark documents required in 
the success criteria for this checkpoint can be created for any *content 
type* (including non-W3C or new types) by any person or organization. 
For more information, see *section 2.2.3 Content Type-Specific WCAG 

NOTE 2: A *content type-specific WCAG benchmark* document is required 
for at least one *content type* that is supported by the authoring tool. 
Any ATAG conformance claim will be specific to authoring the content 
type(s) for which benchmark documents are provided.

3) The two success criteria look good, though I might suggest switching 
the construct "Any authoring tool that..." to "If the authoring tool..."


1) Technique B.1.1-1.1 [Sufficient]: minor rewording

Providing a content type-specific WCAG benchmark (in the ATAG 2.0 
conformance profile) for all content types that are automatically chosen 
for the author by the tool (e.g. tools may automatically choose the 
content type when a type is the only one that is supported for a given 
task or because a shortcut is provided that allows new content to be 
created with a minimum of steps).

2) Technique B.1.1-2.1 [Sufficient]: minor rewording

If the author is given the option to choose a content type, providing at 
least one content type, for which a *content type-specific WCAG 
benchmark* has been published, in a prominent way (i.e. listed ahead of 
other content types, listed on the first page of choices, etc.).

3) Technique B.1.1-2.2 [Advisory]: minor rewording

Displaying a warning when the author chooses to create Web content with 
a content type that lacks a published content type-specific WCAG benchmark.

4) Technique B.1.1-0.1 [Advisory]:  minor rewording

Consulting *section 2.2.3 content type-specific WCAG benchmark in ATAG 
2.0* for guidance on how to create a benchmark document for a content 
type that does not already have one.

5) Technique B.1.1-0.2 [Advisory]:  minor rewording

Supporting W3C Recommendations, wherever appropriate. Since these 
content types have already been reviewed for accessibility, the task of 
locating or creating *content type-specific WCAG benchmarks* for them 
may be simplified. References include:

Technical Reports and Publications page of the W3C.
W3C language specific accessibility notes: CSS [CSS-ACCESS], SMIL 

6) Technique B.1.1-0.3 [Advisory]: minor rewording

For tools that dynamically generate Web content, supporting multiple 
content types each with a *content type-specific WCAG benchmark* 
document, and using content negotiation to deliver content in the 
end-user's preferred content type.

7) Technique B.1.1-0.X [Advisory]: NEW AFTER B.1.1-0.1

Consulting the techniques section of the WCAG-WG for techniques 
documents and other supporting materials that may inform or even provide 
the basis for a *content type-specific WCAG benchmark*.



Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 17:00:00 UTC

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