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

Re: ATAG2: Wording ideas for decision-support success criteria

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:12:26 -0400
Message-Id: <p06240806c6d437251780@[142.1.147.51]>
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I like the suggestions here. I would suggest a slight rewording.

B.2.X Decision Support: If the authoring tool presents choices to the 
author(s), provide information to assist the author in making choices 
that enable the content to conform to WCAG 2.0. (Level A) 
@@decision-support SC@@

B.2.X.1 If the *authoring tool* provides *authors* with a choice of 
*options* among *Web content technologies*, then the author has 
access to at least  one of the following types of information prior 
to making their decision: - information about the *authoring tool*'s 
support for the production of  accessible content in the *Web content 
technology* options available; or - a notice that the *authoring 
tool* does not provide support for the  production of accessible 
content in a specific *Web content technology*, or - links to 
information about how to author accessibly using the *web content 
technology* options.

B.2.X.2 If the *authoring tool* provides *authors* with the *option* 
to  use a *Web content technology* for which the authoring tool does 
not  support the production of accessible content (i.e., does not 
meet Part  B), then the authoring tool: (a) notifies the author(s) 
that choosing that option may result in web  content accessibility 
problems; and (b) suggests alternative *Web content technologies* for 
which it does  support the production of accessible content (if 
available).

Jutta

At 10:08 AM -0400 9/1/09, Jan Richards wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Here's some ideas re: "decision support:" success criteria:
>
>This idea came up near the end of the call yesterday:
>
>B.2.1.X If the *authoring tool* provides *authors* with the *option* 
>to use a *Web content technology*, then the author has access to at 
>least one of the following types of information prior to making 
>their decision:
>- information about the *authoring tool*'s support for the 
>production of accessible content in that *Web content technology*; or
>- a notice that the *authoring tool* does not provide support for 
>the production of accessible content in that *Web content 
>technology*.
>
>
>But looking at this, I wonder if perhaps the key part is to warn 
>authors about choices that take them toward technologies that the 
>authoring tool cannot support them with....
>
>B.2.1.X If the *authoring tool* provides *authors* with the *option* 
>to use a *Web content technology* for which the authoring tool does 
>not support the production of accessible content (i.e., does not 
>meet Part B), then the authoring tool:
>(a) notifies the author(s) that choosing that option may result in 
>web content accessibility problems; and
>(b) suggests alternative *Web content technologies* for which it 
>does support the production of accessible content (if available).
>
>
>BTW: I think we should start treating widget sets as "Web content 
>technologies" since they can be used as content building blocks and 
>they may have accessibility support that a given tool does or 
>doesn't support the use of.
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>--
>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 Monday, 14 September 2009 18:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC