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

[Fwd: RE: ATAG issues]

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:33:39 -0700
Message-ID: <488F5473.3010406@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>


Just to document my biggest concern, here's a list to help our
1. My biggest concern is that there is almost no software that is NOT an
authoring tool, according to the definition.  The only type of software
that I can think of are software running on closed devices with no
external connection.  I don't think there are a lot of such software
being made these days.  A definition of this scope has very little
2. My second biggest concern is that ATAG appears written with the
assumption that only one tool, one author, and one platform is used.
Therefore, the success criteria seem to look shaky when you ask
questions such as, "How does this success criterion hold up when we have
a multi-platform environment (design time and/or user environment),
platform-on-platform environment (design time and/or user environment),
multi-author environment, a quality-control process environment, unclear
tool collection (usually authors don't know what all the tools that will
be used until needed.) environment, or unknown output UI (an entry into
a database or an email sent, for example) environment?
3. Similar to above, I think there should be a reality check of, "How
does this success criterion hold up when a scenario involves a
non-PC-environment?".  I believe that is an implicit assumption from the
working group, which should not be the case. 
4. I don't think all success criteria are testable, especially those
that are platform-related (A2.4.6, for example, how does one know if two
different configuration systems are "comparable"?) & A1.2.3.  Actually,
many other success criteria give me doubt about their testability. (What
constitutes "simple action" per A3.4.1?)
5. ATAG seems very heavy-handed on platform protocol.  While I agree it
makes sense, I don't think ATAG is the place to manipulate the
6. I don't think all success criteria are feasible, especially B2.2.1,
B2.2.5, and B2.2.9.
7. A1.2.2 appears to suggest that not all UI elements have to follow the
platform architecture.  But the wording of A1.2.1 suggests otherwise.
These two success criteria should be properly merged to eliminate
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 17:34:41 UTC

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