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

RE: ATAG2: Proposal to strengthen SC(was B.1.1.1)

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:05:31 -0500
To: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>, AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A308818ED@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi Alex,

Some comments inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Li [mailto:alli@microsoft.com]
> Sent: December 20, 2010 1:49 PM
> To: Richards, Jan; AUWG
> Subject: RE: ATAG2: Proposal to strengthen SC(was B.1.1.1)
> 
> Just trying to seek clarity on the wording--Is there a scenario in
> which an "authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or
> modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is NOT
> applicable"?  If there is no such scenario, then the condition would be
> meaningless.

Imagine a WYSIWYG HTML editor that only allowed headings, images, links, text-style and text color. It would not be required to support accessible tables (for example), while it would be required to support alt-text, h1,h2,h3m etc. headings, etc.

> I also wonder how this would apply to WCAG 2.0 2.3.1 success criteria.
> For most situation, WCAG 2.0 2.3.1 is about not inserting flashing
> graphics/video.  Does it mean that the B.1.1.1 applies to the
> video/graphics production authoring tool only because you can't expect
> a tool that allows the insertion of graphics/video to make something
> stop flashing?  If so, then we need to remove "add" in the proposed
> wording.

I think we're ok here. The proposal is just saying that the author shouldn't be forced into a situation where they are breaking WCAG 2.0. A tool that "allowed" a flashing video to be added wouldn't be forcing the user. On the other hand, if the tool always added a big flashing banner ad that the author couldn't turn off, that would be a problem.

Cheers,
Jan

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Richards, Jan
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:58 PM
> To: AUWG
> Subject: ATAG2: Proposal to strengthen SC(was B.1.1.1)
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This proposal is a response to a discussion Alastair and I recently had
> about B.1.1.1 being a very low bar
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0097.html)
> in which Alastair suggested strengthening it.
> 
> The structure is similar to the checking requirement SC(was B.2.2.1)
> 
> PROPOSED WORDING:
> =================
> (was B.1.1.1) Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the authoring tool
> provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that
> a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is applicable, then authors can use the
> authoring tool to meet the success criterion.
> The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or The WCAG
> 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or The
> WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met
> (Level AAA).
> 
> 
> CURRENT WORDING:
> ================
> (was B.1.1.1) Accessible Content Production (WCAG): Authors can use the
> authoring tool to produce accessible web content (WCAG): [Implementing
> B.2.1.1] The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
> The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA);
> or The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are
> met (Level AAA).
> 
> 
> --
> (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, 20 December 2010 20:06:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 December 2010 20:06:07 GMT