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

B.2.1.1 proposal

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:11:40 -0500
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A3539192B@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

Alastair and I have worked on some wording that will hopefully strengthen B.2.1.1 in a reasonable way:

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the *authoring tool* places restrictions on the *web content* that can be produced, those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (WCAG 2.0)

- The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria can be met (Level A); or

- The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria can be met (Level AA); or

- The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria can be met (Level AAA).



Alastair and I did not discuss whether restricted needs to be defined, but as I have been putting this together, I think it does....so here's a start:

restricted web content authoring
When the web content that authors can produced with an authoring tool either must include or must not include certain elements, attributes, widgets, etc.


Points to make in the implementing doc:
---------------------------------------
- As with all ATAG SCs, this SC applies to the tool as a whole, not just parts of the tool.
- Authoring tools that do not place restrictions or that have unrestricted modes (e.g., code-level editing views) will automatically pass this.
- Restricted environments are fine, and in many cases they actually benefit accessibility, as long as the restrictions don't prevent applicable WCAG 2.0 SCs from being met.


Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jan
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 15:12:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 March 2011 15:12:13 GMT