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

re: ATAG2: Amended proposal for B.2.1.1 Decision Support

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB2000E.5020809@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
On the call yesterday, Greg, Jeanne, Jutta and I discussed some changes 
to B.2.1.1 and I took an action to write them up for this week's survey. 
Here they are:

Changes to note:
- "included vs. excluded" terminology dropped in favour of the longer 
but more clear: "provides support for the production of accessible 
content vs. does not provide support for the production of accessible 
content"
- dropped Note on conformance claims - the info is repeated in the 
Conformance Claims section
- editorial changes to the 2nd paragraph of the intent
- new intent text: "The choice of which technologies to provide 
accessible content production support for is left completely to the 
developer (e.g., a developer might decide to begin by adding support to 
a less-popular technology because a major customer has requested it"
- new para for explaining the intent of (a)
- new intent text: "The list may be a partial or complete list of the 
technologies for which support for the production of accessible content 
is provided."


B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of
producing a web content technology for publishing for which the 
authoring tool *does not provide support for the production of 
accessible content*, then both of the following are true (Level A):
(a) Warning: authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide 
support for the production of accessible content for that web content 
technology.
(b) List Included Technologies: from the warning, authors can access a
list of technologies for which the authoring tool does *provide support 
for the production of accessible content*.


Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:
------------------------------------
The intent of this success criterion is to inform authors as early as
possible about the degree to which the authoring tool will be able to
provide accessible web content production support for the web content
technologies that it is capable of producing. If accessibility is part
of early decision-making, it will reduce the likelihood that retrofits
for accessibility will be required later on.

The success criterion makes no judgment or assumption about the 
accessibility of web content technologies. Instead, it is assumed that 
any technology can be made accessible if used properly. For example, a 
technology with no intrinsic accessibility features can be made 
accessible in conjunction with another technology (e.g., bitmap images 
may be made more accessible via HTML text labels).

Instead, the success criterion depends on whether the authoring tool in
question actually supports the production of accessible content in the
technology through features such as checking and repair or does not. The 
choice of which technologies to provide accessible content production 
support for is left completely to the developer (e.g., a developer might 
decide to begin by adding support to a less-popular technology because a 
major customer has requested it).

The wording "provides the option of producing" is intended to rule out 
situations in which authors make technology choices without guidance by 
the authoring tool (e.g., by hand coding, by specifying a DTD).

The wording "for publishing"  is intended to rule out situations in 
which incomplete content is created in interim formats that are not 
intended for publishing.

The intent of (a) is that there be a warning before authors have 
progressed too far with a technology option lacking support for the 
production of accessible content in the authoring tool. The warning may 
appear before authors make a selection or after.

The intent of (b) is simply to inform the user, who has now just
received a warning that the authoring tool lacks accessibility support
for a given technology, that one or more other web content technologies
produced by the authoring tool are supported by such accessibility
support features. The list may be a partial or complete list of the 
technologies for which support for the production of accessible content 
is provided. In either case, it is left to authors, to decide whether 
any of the listed technologies might be appropriate for the task or 
whether they will continue on with their original selection.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:
--------------------------------------
Choosing video formats:
A video authoring tool allows authors to save into several video file
formats. However, the authoring tool includes a built-in closed-caption
editor that only works with one of the file formats. While there is
nothing intrinsically "inaccessible" about any of these three video 
formats, when the option to save is presented, the formats that are not 
supported by the authoring tool's own closed-caption editor include 
warnings that caption support is not provided. In the warning's 
explanation, the video format that is supported by the closed-caption 
editor is identified.


Cheers,
Jan



> AMENDED FULL PROPOSAL:
> ======================
>
> B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of
> producing an *excluded web content technology* for publishing, then both
> of the following are true (Level A):
> (a) Warning: authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide
> accessibility support for that web content technology.
> (b) List Included Technologies: from the warning, authors can access a
> list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide
> accessibility support (i.e., the *included web content technologies*).
>
> Note: If a conformance claim is made, the claim cites the included and
> excluded technologies.
>
> Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:
> ------------------------------------
> The intent of this success criterion is to inform authors as early as
> possible about the degree to which the authoring tool will be able to
> provide accessible web content production support for the web content
> technologies that it is capable of producing. If accessibility is part
> of early decision-making, it will reduce the likelihood that retrofits
> for accessibility will be required later on.
>
> The success criterion makes absolutely no assumption about the
> accessibility or inaccessibility of any particular web content
> technologies, because any technology can be made accessible. For
> example, a technology with no intrinsic accessibility features can be
> made accessible in conjunction with another technology (e.g., bitmap
> images may be made more accessible via HTML text labels).
>
> Instead, the success criterion depends on whether the authoring tool in
> question actually supports the production of accessible content in the
> technology (i.e., "included" technologies) or does not (i.e., "excluded"
> technologies) through features like checking and repair.
>
> The wording "provides the option of producing an *excluded web content
> technology* for publishing" is intended to (1) rule out situations in
> which authors make technology choices without guidance by the authoring
> tool (e.g., by hand coding, by specifying a DTD) and (2) rule out
> situations in which incomplete content is created in interim formats
> that are not intended for publishing.
>
> The intent of (b) is simply to inform the user, who has now just
> received a warning that the authoring tool lacks accessibility support
> for a given technology, that one or more other web content technologies
> produced by the authoring tool are supported by such accessibility
> support features. It is left to authors, to decide whether any of the
> "included technologies" might be appropriate for the task or whether
> they will continue on with their original selection.
>
> Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:
> --------------------------------------
> Choosing video formats:
> A video authoring tool allows authors to save into several video file
> formats. However, the authoring tool includes a built-in closed-caption
> editor that only works with one of the file formats. While there is
> nothing intrinsically "inaccessible" about any of the video formats,
> when the option to save is presented, the formats that are not supported
> by the authoring tool's own closed-caption editor include warnings that
> caption support is not provided. In the warning's explanation, the video
> format that is supported by the closed-caption editor is identified.
>


-- 
(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, 30 March 2010 13:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 March 2010 13:44:02 GMT