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

Re: Some proposed ATAG wordings

From: <boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:41:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1217328117.488ef3f59e4ae@webmail.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Concerns about testability with some of these..  what is a "level benchmarked" 
technology?

Best, Tim

Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>:

> 
> 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.
> 
> LEVEL A SC
> 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 
> version").
> 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.
> 
> LEVEL AA SC
> ADD
> 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").
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:42:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:08 GMT