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

FW: B.2.1.1 proposal

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:32:15 -0500
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A3C934904@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Forwarded message from Alessandro M. (while Jeanne tries to get his email address accepted by the list):

-----Original Message-----
From: Alessandro Miele [mailto:alessandro.miele@standardware.net] 
Sent: March 4, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Richards, Jan
Subject: RE: B.2.1.1 proposal

Hi all,

Following the discussion, I believe that B2.1.1 should remain and that "restricted web content" should be defined.
Regarding the title of B.2.1.1 "Accessible Content Possible", I think that the word "Production" as was in the old definition, could be more understandable than "Possible".

But which could be restrictions?
If I use a CMS that doesn't provide support for inserting movies in a webpage, but anyway generates output that meet the WCAG SCs, could be this a restriction example? 
But If the tool has the "Unrestricted mode" switched on, then it could let the author insert the movie anyway without "warranty" on the output, right? In this case the tool will pass the SC. (?)

So reporting your definition "When the web content [...] include certain elements, attributes, widgets, etc." the problem could be to define the "elements"...

Maybe we could move the focus of the wording to the concept of "Restricted" or "Unrestricted" mode available on the authoring tool...

Just some thoughts...

Cheers,
Alessandro 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richards, Jan
Sent: giovedý 3 marzo 2011 16:12
To: AUWG
Subject: B.2.1.1 proposal

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 Friday, 4 March 2011 16:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 4 March 2011 16:32:46 GMT