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

Re: Proposal on minor issues from ATAG 2.0 Last Call

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4C8E7487.7010405@w3.org>
To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocad.ca>, AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

On 9/8/2010 12:42 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:
> Hi all,
> (This document references Ids that I have added to the Compiled Last Call Comments - see attached)
> The following are proposals that I think can be addressed on Monday's call - before the F2F. Please reply to this message with your responses:
> - (a) Yes, (b) Yes with changes, (c) No, (d) needs discussion.
> Proposals:
> (0) Comments that I propose do not require any change (Just search for this string in the attached HTML file):
> - UAWG1
> - GG3
> - WCAGWG12
> - GG5
> - MS23
> - WCAGWG19
> - WCAGWG20
> - WCAGWG21
> - WCAGWG23
> - MS41


> (1) Use "editing-view" instead of "editing view" to avoid confusion with editing a view. (addresses: UAWG2)

> (2) Part A: Applicability Note #2: Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: GG1, AC1)
> Reflected web content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing-views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g., ensuring that text alternatives in the content can be programmatically determined). However, where an accessibility problem is caused directly by the content being edited (e.g., if an image in the content lacks a text alternative), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the user interface.

> (3) Part B: Applicability Note #2: Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: MS1)
> Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the accessibility of content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session. For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g., a third-party feed).

> (4) Part B: Applicability Note #3: Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: GG2)
> Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B. (e.g., an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).

> (5) Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0065.html  (addresses: AC2)
> (6) Move "Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation." To be a "Note" under "Conformance Claims (Optional)". (addresses: MS4)
> (7) Use () instead of [] for repeated "[For authoring tool user interface]" in Part A. (addresses: GG4)

Yes.  Whatever is the correct and consistent grammatical usage!

> (8) Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: UAWG2, MS5)
> A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If content is rendered in editing-views, recognized alternative content can be programmatically determined.

Yes (with change). I would prefer adding the sentence to the existing 
text and not add an additional note.

> (9) Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: JC1) and move to A.3.6.X (addresses: MS7)
> A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: Authors can set their own display settings for editing views without affecting the web content to be published.

> (10) Add note to A.4.2.1 Document Accessibility Features (does not change normative meaning) (addresses: WCAGWG14)
> "The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2."

Yes, and I would again prefer to put it in the regular text and avoid 
another note, if at all possible.

> (11) Remove this informative (and outdated) line from B.1.3 (addresses: WCAGWG16)
> If accessibility information is required from authors during the automatic generation process, see Guideline B.2.1.

> (12) Fix typo (addresses: WCAGWG18)
> B.2.3.1: Typo refers to Guideline B.2.2 should be, "as required by SC B.2.2.1."

> (13) Rewording without change in normative - Changing the handle for "B.2.4.2 Automated suggestions" (addresses: GG6, MS34)
> B.2.4.2 Conditions for automated suggestions:

> (14) Reword but doesn't change normative meaning: (addresses: MS38)
> B.3.2.2 Reactivate Option: If authors can turn off an accessible content support feature, then they can turn the feature back on. (Level A)

> (15) In A.3.5.1 change the "bi-directional" handle to "Two-way." (addresses: WCAGWG24)

> (16) Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: MS43)
> A.3.6.1 Save Settings: Any authoring tool display settings and control settings can be saved between authoring sessions.

> (17)Typo: Should be B.1.3.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level AA)

> (18) Rewording without change in normative meaning (addresses: WCAGWG28)
> A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to automatically save all content edits made by authors.

Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 18:59:46 UTC

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