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

Re: Some proposed ATAG wordings

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:17:57 -0700
Message-ID: <488F2695.8010800@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry that was a stray "level"...benchmarked technology would just mean 
a technology that had a benchmark in the conformance claim.

Cheers,
Jan


boland@nist.gov wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 14:16:31 GMT

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