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

ATAG 2.0 Conforming vs. Compatible

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:54:35 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A21DC233E@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Microsoft's review brings up an issue that we've struggled with many times over the years. Namely, how to take into account tools that are just a small part of a larger authoring process.

Here's an idea:

1. We could more clearly state that the "Full" and "Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance categories apply to Authoring Tools that are complete "Authoring Systems" - currently its most clearly stated in a Part B applicability note (we should probably also define "Authoring Systems"). 

2. We could then add another conformance category for Authoring Tools that are a subset of a complete "Authoring System" (e.g., CSS editor, photo editor, accessibility checker). Perhaps something like e.g. *Compatible with an ATAG 2.0 Conforming Authoring System (Level A,AA,AAA) or "ATAG 2.0 Compatible" for short. The tool would have to:
- meet all applicable SCs in Part A because an accessibility barrier in an intermediate step can make the entire process inaccessible (and we should check the Part A SC wording to make sure they are properly conditional on the type of content and the editing options available). 
- meet all SCs in B.1
- meet all SCs in B.3 (B.3.4 should be conditional on "if there is documentation")
- meet B.2.1
- etc....
...Essentially we would be holding off on checking, repair and maybe a couple others. (we might also consider moving the SCs that relate to the process as a whole to a new Principle to make these easier to specify).

Plus this important condition:
- The tool MUST NOT interfere with the other parts a larger authoring system meeting the SCs that it doesn't have to meet (e.g., by publishing the content in a way that it can't be easily repaired once an external checker has run, by failing to preserve accessibility info that another part adds, etc.).

3. I still think checking and repair are very important and so for tools that don't include it we need to make sure that the author is made aware that external check and repair (e.g. repair instructions) is advised.


Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
(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, 13 September 2010 17:54:53 UTC

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