W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2008

Some proposed ATAG wordings

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:12:27 -0700
Message-ID: <488EB4CB.1040901@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Some ideas for tomorrow....


B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation of 
content that is accessible.

Rationale: Make it easier for the author to create accessible content by 
choosing technologies which support that.

Note: In light of the requirements of this guideline. Consider providing 
benchmark documents for technology(ies) that your authoring tool already 
uses by default or prominently offers as an option to authors.

B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool automatically 
selects Web content technologies, then the selection is a level 
benchmarked technology.

B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool provides 
authors with technology options, benchmarked technology options are 
listed with at least as much prominence as any other options.


for B.1.2...add "content feeds" as an example to "conversion"

A process that takes as input, content in one Web content technology or 
non-Web content technology and produces as output, content in a 
different Web content technology (e.g., "Save as HTML" function, 
displaying a content feed).

In Conformance claim, make distinction between "Technologies Authored" 
and "Technologies Referenced". Only "authored" ones need benchmarks, but 
"referenced" ones should be listed for Part B.

Part B:

Applicability section:
- Authors may only reasonably be expected to make decisions about 
content that they have information about. Therefore, authoring decisions 
that would require specific knowledge about content that is unknown to 
author at the time of authoring (e.g., descriptions of media files to be 
submitted by authors, aggregated news feeds) are exempt from Part B.
- Support for accessible authoring is only required for "Authored 
Technologies" and those accessibility practices that take place in an 
"Authored Technology", but are related to the "Referenced Technologies" 
(e.g., alt text for images) with the exception that support for creating 
"(Conforming) Alternate Versions" is not required.


B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Rationale: Checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool 
helps make authors aware of accessibility problems during the authoring 
process, so they can be immediately addressed.

Note: It is a good design decision for tools to remember author answers 
to questions manual or semi-automated checking queries.

--Blue starts--

Conformance Note: While automated checking or more advanced 
implementations of semi-automated checking may improve the authoring 
experience, only manual checking is minimally required to meet the 
success criteria for this guideline.

Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool 
controls the authoring process to an extent that it is not possible for 
authors to introduce accessibility problems.

B.2.2.1 Check "A" Accessibility: An individual check is associated with 
each level "A" Web content accessibility benchmark.
B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available to authors prior to 
publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool.
B.2.2.3 Checking (Minimum): Checking is available for at least those 
potential accessibility problems that the authoring tool is capable of 
addressing (exempting the catch-all method of a "conforming alternate 
B.2.2.4 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment 
to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly 
identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), 
instructions are provided to help authors to decide.

B.2.2.3 Checking (Enhanced): Checking is available for all potential 
accessibility problems, including those where the only accessible 
authoring practice is a "conforming alternate version").

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 06:11:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:55 UTC