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

re: AUWG Action Item: ATAG 2.0 Conformance Proposal

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:59:08 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A2824CACA@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

Here's a new proposal for the Conformance section following on from the reorg proposal at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0016.html

Talk to you all tomorrow morning...


(1) PROPOSAL: Rework Partial Conformance categories

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A | Level AA | Level AAA): Authoring Tool User Interface: 
Intended to be used when development has initially focussed on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors. 
- The authoring tool satisfies the relevant success criteria in Part 1:
 + All of the Level A success criteria for Level A.
 + All of the Level A and AA success criteria for Level AA.
 + All of the success criteria for Level AAA.
- All of the Part 1 Applicability Notes have been applied.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A | Level AA | Level AAA): Content Production with Checking/Repair: 
Intended to be used when development has initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users. 
- The authoring tool satisfies the relevant success criteria in Part 2:
 + All of the Level A success criteria for Level A.
 + All of the Level A and AA success criteria for Level AA.
 + All of the success criteria for Level AAA.
- All of the Part 2 Applicability Notes have been applied.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A | Level AA | Level AAA): Content Production with No Checking/Repair: 
Intended to be used when development has initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users, but checking and repair functions are not provided. 
- The authoring tool satisfies the relevant success criteria in Part 2 (except those in Principle 2.3):
 + All of the Level A success criteria for Level A.
 + All of the Level A and AA success criteria for Level AA.
 + All of the success criteria for Level AAA.
- All of the Part 2 Applicability Notes have been applied.
- AND the authoring tool enables the web content that it produces to be subsequently checked and repaired.


(2) PROPOSAL: Add note under Conformance Requirements:

=Specialized Authoring Tools=

Some authoring tools provide a fairly limited set of authoring functions compared to the range of possible authoring functions addressed in these guidelines (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application, etc.). In this case, most of the ATAG 2.0 requirements are simply not applicable, since most of the requirements are conditional on particular authoring functions being present (e.g., automatically generated content must only be accessible if this functionality exists). 



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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Alastair Campbell
> Sent: October 28, 2010 11:44 AM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: MS2 - applicability of ATAG 2
> 
> > MS2: "The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if
> > ATAG is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be
> > both..."
> 
> I've been thinking about this, and I suspect the process WCAG 2.0 went through
> could provide guidance.
> 
> Not all websites (or web pages) provide video, so when applying WCAG to a page
> without multimedia, those guidelines aren't relevant. For a web page with one
> heading and a paragraph, very few of the WCAG checkpoints apply.
> 
> In the same way, very few ATAG checkpoints would apply to a Facebook status
> update, but ATAG *does* apply it as a web-authoring tool.
> 
> WCAG got to a reasonably short & understandable set of guidelines by being
> technology agnostic, and moving those aspects to the techniques and
> understanding documents.
> Whether a page is created with HTML or Flash, some checkpoints apply, but the
> means of applying them is separated into the techniques.
> 
> I'll read through the document again, looking for ways we could apply the same
> sort of approach. I've only read it twice, so I have a slightly fresher pair
> of eyes than many here!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -Alastair
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 20:59:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 October 2010 20:59:52 GMT