W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2010

ATAG2: Proposed intent text and examples for B.2.2.7

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:37:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA7D4F7.5040807@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Plus text to address Jutta's comment (not yet approved by Jutta) is in 
marked as *<extra>*.

B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating 
accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA)
Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of 
the associated results (e.g., low-level check results, high-level 
conformance claims, etc.)

<NEW>
Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.7:

The intent of this success criterion is to facilitate the creation of 
accessibility metadata, which can have multiple uses, benefiting both 
authors (e.g., by enabling interoperability between various checking and 
repair tools) and end users (e.g., by enabling accessible resource 
discovery).

The intent of the note is to be clear that no particular format is 
required. Various metadata options exist and they differ in the nature 
of the information they encode. The metadata choice will depend on the 
intended use of the metadata.
*<extra>While this success criterion does not require the use of a 
particular accessibility metadata format, accessible resource discovery 
is facilitated by formats that include low-level checking results as 
opposed to formats that only include high-level conformance information. 
The reason for this is that individual end users who are seeking 
accessible content, may have preferences for certain types of 
accessibility information (e.g., captions), but not for others (e.g., 
audio descriptions). This level of detail can be extracted from checking 
results, but not from high-level conformance claims.</extra>*

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.7:

Saving EARL: An authoring tool includes an automated/semi-automated 
accessibility checker, but only manual repair guidance. In order to give 
authors additional repair options, the checker includes the option of 
storing the listing of web content accessibility problems using the 
Evaluation and Repair Language (EARL). This allows the author to use an 
external automated/semi-automated repair service.

Saving AccessForAll: A learning content management system (LCMS) is 
implemented with a personalized approach to accessibility. Instead of 
every version of every web content resource being fully conformant 
(e.g., every video including captions), several versions of each web 
content resource are produced (e.g., one with captions and one without) 
and AccessForAll metadata is associated with each. Then when an end user 
attempts to access a web content resource, their personal preferences 
are used by the LCMS to locate and serve out the version of the web 
content resource that is appropriate to that end user's preferences.

Accessibility of legacy web content: A content management system 
includes the ability to inventory issues within legacy web content. 
Running automated checking on legacy web content and storing the results 
in metadata, provides decision-makers with potentially useful information.
</NEW>


-- 
(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 Monday, 22 March 2010 20:37:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 March 2010 20:37:33 GMT