- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:08:34 -0500
- To: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
- CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Greg, For reference here is the CURRENT WORDING: B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a choice between web content technology options, then the following information is provided for each option: (Level A) (a) General Information: general information about the accessibility of the technology to end users; and (b) For Included Technologies: information on the accessible content support features provided for that technology by the authoring tool; and (c) For Excluded Technologies: both a warning that choosing that technology may result in web content accessibility problems and information on alternative included technologies (if available). Note: If a conformance claim is made, the claim cites the included and excluded technologies. On 08/03/2010 5:25 PM, Greg Pisocky wrote: > If I am going to object, the least I can do is provide an explanation. > > In the implementation notes to B.2.1.1 there is significant reference to > the “system” prompting as cursors move and checkboxes get checked and > the like. This is not an insignificant engineering effort to provide a > “system” with the necessary level of intelligence . The examples given > certainly go beyond the notion that merely mentioning the various > accessibility merits in the online help of various technologies an > application may support is sufficient for meeting this criteria. JR: I'm not sure what text you are referring to. "Cursor" and "checkbox" don't appear. "System" only appears a part of "Content management System" in the "Choosing between calendar widgets" example. > My other concern is the notion that every tool has to be an uber tool. > Why is there is an expectation that an authoring tool which performs > some functions on content be expected to perform all conceivable > functions on that content? There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a > video editing tool that may support the image manipulation component of > video (splicing, editing, etc.), but requires users to add or edit > captioning in another tool – in fact it may be a more appropriate > workflow depending upon the nature of the video being employed. JR: Right, but ATAG2 defines "authoring tool" as the end to end series of tools one might use to produce video for the web. The video-editor tool doesn't need to be able add captions as long as there is a caption-editor in the process. HOWEVER, if the caption-editor is only able to add captions to some of the formats that the video-editor is able to produce, it would be better from the perspective of ATAG for the video-editor to guide the author towards those that do. > Formats are typically not intrinsically accessible or inaccessible until > they are provided context. An editing application often manipulates > content that has no accessibility associated with it until it placed in > other content, so for instance, how one chooses to implement video > captioning could more be a function of what mechanism will be used to > play back the video and not the video format and any captioning that > would be required has to be authored elsewhere. Depending on the output > mechanism, the producer would select an appropriate captioning file and > method for editing the caption. It’s a rare tool that would have such > insight into an author’s eventual intentions for any given piece of > content. Right. If for example, the caption-editor can wrap captions around any video format then there is no need of guidance by the video-editor. > More simplistically, it’s analogous to editing an image file .giff, > .png, etc. Accessibility, in the form of alt text gets added if the > image gets placed in HTML for instance, if going into a word processing > application, alt text is provided through a different mechanism, the > editing tool can’t really know. > > Saving a document as text and not HTML? Sorry, text is more accessible > than HTML, I have to warn you. Well not if I plan to drop it in a word > processor or desktop publishing application stripped of other encoding > so I can reformat it to my own liking, so please stop annoying me with > these silly admonitions. JR: This isn't about text vs. HTML. The included and exclsuded technology condition is just an attempt by ATAG2 to be flexible to the fact that real-world tools may produce many formats and may focus on ATAG2 conformance of some of them before others. > In the two examples given, the scenarios imply that the application has > sufficient logic to distinguish one flavor of format from another and > how the author intends to use them. > > In my opinion this is too a high level of sophistication required in > order to support an A level requirement. Few people are going to design > such an authoring tool and fewer still will use one. If this is indeed > reading too much into the requirement, then let’s find more realistic > examples of the simple kinds of implementations people are envisioning, > because these are rather elaborate. JR: Greg's objection has made me take a closer look at our wording. Especially the UI overhead we require when the tool is doing everything right and the technology is included. I wonder if we can be more clear that the minimum requirements for (a) general and (b) included are for documentation only? Cheers, Jan > Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1: > > * *Choosing video formats:* A video authoring tool can be used to > edit three video formats: (1) an old video format that does not > include text tracks, (2) a newer video format that has one text > track and widespread support in players and (3) a very new > multi-text track video format that currently has limited support > in players. The authoring tool includes a built-in closed > captioning utility for the newer format whereas captions can only > be added to the older video format using a third party tool that > adds them as open captioning. When authors save a new video file, > the "Save As" dialog provides the three video formats are provided > as choices. When focus moves to a format in the dialog an > information area in the dialog briefly notes accessibility > information (and other information, such as compression > effectiveness) with links to more information in the > documentation. For (1), it is noted that the built-in closed > captioning utility will not be available and that captions are > required for WCAG conformance. The (linked) further information > notes that only open captioning is possible in this format and > only using a third party tool. For (3), it is noted that player > support is limited, which may limit access by some end users. The > (linked) further information includes links to an "Accessibility > Information" page maintained by the company that developed the new > video format. > * *Choosing between calendar widgets:* A content management system > provides a date field for authors to add to their content. When > the field is added, the system prompts authors to choose a > calendar widget for the field that will appear to end users. All > of the choices that conform to WCAG 2.0 > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20100303/#intro-rel-wcag> > are labeled as accessible with links to more accessibility > information provided by the makers of the widgets. Choices that do > not conform include warnings to authors. > > *Greg Pisocky* > Accessibility Specialist > Adobe Systems Incorporated > 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000 > McLean, VA 22102 USA > 703.883.2810p, 703.883.2850f > > 703.678.3542c > > > gpisocky@adobe.com <mailto:gpisocky@adobe.com> > > www.adobe.com/accessibility <http://www.adobe.com/accessibility> > > Concall Info > > * *69900* (from any Adobe office worldwide) > * *408-536-9900 *(from any non-Adobe location in the 408 area code) > * *1-877-220-5439 *(North America Toll Free) > * *1-800-642-196* (Australia Toll Free) > * *44-20-8606-1105* or ext. 81105 (London) > -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060 Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 17:09:17 UTC