W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2011

Proposal to remove "B.2.1.1" (was B.1.1.1)

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:16:43 -0500
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A30D50E1F@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
On the call I took an action to look at this...
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110204/results#xq3

The original spirit of the SC was:
"does the tool let accessibility-savvy users meet wcag by SOME means (e.g. a text view)"

As pointed out, this is a low bar.

The proposed rewording tried to tighten this up to basically say:
"if the user can use the tool to break WCAG conformance then they can use the tool to fix it"

But in the interests of avoiding repetition, I think this is covered already, especially by:

- B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG) - there needs to be mechanisms to set accessibility properties

- B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG) - authoring tool will help find issues (even if the help is manual). And the wording is similar enough to B.2.1.1: "If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions)."

- B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG) - authoring tool will help repair issues (even if the help is manual)


So, I suggest we drop B.2.1.1 altogether.

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 Wednesday, 9 February 2011 22:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 February 2011 22:17:32 GMT