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

RE: Comments on ATAG 2.0 draft

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:10:49 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E209092E8FBD@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

Some more inital comments (marked JR):

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-atag2-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-atag2-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jamal Mazrui
> Sent: August 30, 2010 2:19 PM
> To: public-atag2-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Greg Elin; jbrewer@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on ATAG 2.0 draft
> Let me be clear that these are comments by me as an individual, not
> representing my employer.  They address Authoring Tool Accessibility
> Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0, W3C Working Draft 08 July 2010.
> In general, I think the draft is excellent.  I do suggest that it make
> clear that an authoring tool should produce accessible content with its
> default settings.  Currently, I interpret the guidelines as recommending
> that such settings be as prominent as other configuration choices.  I
> think it is important, however, that an author has to make a conscious
> decision to depart from a mode in which accessible content is the
> result.  In this way, accessible content is the norm for developers who
> do not think about accessibility and use the authoring tool as is,
> without customizing its settings.

JR: A possibility would be to add more text to the Implementing doc explaining how it is important to see auto-generated content and suggestions to users in the context of later accessibility checking. Users will be very annoyed if things done by the tool or suggested by the tool later throw errors.

> I also suggest that the guidelines incorporate more explicit references
> to web 2.0-type web pages that create value from user-generated content.
> On such a page, the reader is often an author as well.  The user agent,
> e.g., web browser, is an authoring tool, too.  The user may enter text,
> upload audiovisual media, or simply express preferences -- e.g., rating
> an article.
> This combining of reading and writing capabilities blurs distinctions
> between audiences of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines and the
> User Agent Accessibility Guidelines.  Spontaneous, user-generated
> content makes it more important than ever that accessible content is
> produced via default settings of both live user agents and offline
> authoring tools.

JR: That's a good point that we've tried to work in. Some things that are necessary in a tool like Dreamweaver wouldn't be in a tool that let's you choose a rating-level and write a short text review. We hope we've achieved a good balance (e.g., the wording of B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A):)

> Regards,
> Jamal


(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 19:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:59 UTC