W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

ATAG2: Working on concept of included technologies

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:05:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4A378A7A.7010209@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all, in what follows I've tried to work in the ideas from yesterday's 
discussion including concerns about intermediate formats and tools (Note 
I'm also removing the separate idea of a "conformance profile" within 
the conformance claim.


(1) *Claimant name and affiliation*

(2) *Date* of the claim.

(3) *Conformance level* satisfied (see Conformance Levels).

(4) *Authoring tool information*: The name of the authoring tool and 
sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g., vendor 
name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, 
human language of the user interface or documentation).

- Note 1: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components 
(e.g., a markup editor, an image editor, and a validation tool), then 
information must be provided separately for each component, although the 
conformance claim will treat them as a whole. As stated above, the 
conformance claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, 
not the developer of any of the software components.

- Note 2: The authoring tool must cover the production of the *included 
technologies*. It is optional to include additional tools responsible 
for interim formats. These interim tools would be required to meet Part 
A, but not Part B, since other components of the larger "authoring tool" 
would be responsible for production in the final published Web content 
technologies. @@this para still needs work@@


(5) *Included Technologies*: A list of the *Web content technologies* 
(including version numbers) that the Claimant is *including* in the 
conformance claim. By including a technology, the claimant is claiming 
that the *authoring tool* meets the requirements of ATAG 2.0 during the 
production of the technology. For each *Web content technology*, provide 
information on how the technology might be used to create accessible Web 
content (e.g., provide links to technology-specific techniques). At 
minimum, the technology must be capable of of providing *conforming 
alternate versions*

- Note 1: The list must include any *Web content technologies* that are 
*automatically selected*.

- Note 2: The list may include other *Web content technologies* that 
author(s) can produce using the authoring tool.

- Note 3: a technologies may be a combination of constituent 
technologies. For example, an image technology (e.g., PNG) might be 
listed together with a markup technology (e.g., HTML) since Web content 
in the markup technology is used make Web content in the image 
technology accessible (e.g., a PNG graph is made accessible using an 
HTML table).

NEW DEFINITION
Automatically selected (Web content technologies): Web content 
technologies that the author tool uses for *automatic content 
generation* or sets as the default technology for *author-generated 
content*.


(5)->5(c)

(6)->5(d)

(7)->5(e)



-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information
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, 16 June 2009 12:05:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 June 2009 12:05:48 GMT