W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2007

Responding to comments on ATAG 2.0 A.4.1 and A.4.2

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:52:37 -0500
Message-ID: <45C21AD5.2050404@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

A number of reviewers had trouble with A.4.1 and A.4.2.
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/atag20_pubWD_7dec2006_comment_responses.html)

With their suggestions in mind, here is a possible rewording:

POSSIBLE NEW WORDING:

A.4.1 For the authoring tool user interface, support interoperability 
with assistive technologies. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Assistive technologies that are used by many authors with 
disabilities (e.g., screen readers, screen magnifiers, on-screen 
keyboards, voice recognition systems) rely on the authoring tool to 
provide data and control via prescribed communication protocols.


Success Criteria:

1. The authoring tool must implement AN *accessibility platform 
architecture(s)* applicable to the development platform.

(Aside: DEFINE *accessibility platform architecture* in GLOSSARY. Make 
it clear than MSAA is not the only game in town. Also mention DOM as a 
POSSIBLE option for relaying the content.)

2. Publicly document any deviation from the proper use the implemented 
*accessibility platform architecture(s)* (i.e., lack of use, incomplete 
use, inappropriate use) as defined by the documentation for the 
architecture.

3. If there is any authoring tool user interface functionality that is 
not supported by the implemented *accessibility platform 
architecture(s)*, then at least one of the following must be done:

(a) describe the inaccessible functionality in the conformance claim and 
provide an accessible equivalent for that functionality that is 
supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s).

(b) provide and publicly document an alternative interoperability 
mechanism (e.g. an extension to the implemented *accessibility platform 
architecture(s)*) so that the functionality would be available to an 
assistive technology implementing the mechanism.

For Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality: Web-based 
authoring tools will rely on the accessibility platform architecture 
support of the user agent and therefore meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will 
serve to meet this checkpoint.


(Suggest removing A.4.2 altogether)


------------------------

ORIGINAL WORDING:

A.4.1 For the authoring tool user interface, support interoperability 
with assistive technologies. [Priority 1]

Success Criteria:

1. The authoring tool must implement the accessibility platform 
architecture(s) relevant to the development platform (e.g., MSAA for 
Windows applications, Java Access for Java applications).

2. All of the following information must be published about the 
implementation of the accessibility platform architecture(s):

(a) Specify if only the default support is provided.

(b) Otherwise, provide information (e.g., accessible name, accessible 
description, accessible role) for each GUI component that can receive 
focus, as defined by the accessibility architecture used.

(c) Detail any deviation from their proper use (i.e., lack of use, 
incomplete use, inappropriate use) as defined by the documentation for 
the accessibility platform architecture.

3. If there is any authoring tool user interface functionality that is 
not supported by the relevant accessibility platform architecture(s), 
then at least one of the following must be done:

(a) provide an accessible equivalent for the functionality that is 
supported by the relevant accessibility platform architecture(s).

(b) provide an alternative interoperability mechanism with published 
documentation so that the functionality would be available to an 
assistive technology implementing the mechanism.

(c) describe the inaccessible functionality in the conformance claim.

For Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality: Web-based 
authoring tools will rely on the accessibility platform architecture 
support of the user agent and therefore meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will 
serve to meet this checkpoint.


A.4.2 For the authoring tool user interface, document how the authoring 
interface makes use of existing accessibility architectures. [Priority 3]

Success Criteria:

1. Additional information must be published describing the nature and 
use of the information provided in Checkpoint A.4.1 (e.g., that the long 
description is different from the associated tool tip).

For Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality: Web-based 
authoring tools will rely on the accessibility platform architecture 
support of the user agent and therefore meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will 
serve to meet this checkpoint.
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2007 16:52:56 GMT

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