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

RE: some comments/questions on B.1.1.1 and B.1.1.2 of ATAG2.0

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:44:06 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03677425@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi Tim,

My comments with "JR".

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University

From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boland Jr, Frederick E.
Sent: August 11, 2011 1:46 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: some comments/questions on B.1.1.1 and B.1.1.2 of ATAG2.0

Based upon:

B.1.1.1 - replace "Authors" with "Authoring tools" to make clear
that authoring tools are in fact being tested, not authors.

JR: It can be reworded to put the emphasis on authoring tools.

What exactly is a "default option" - can we get rid of "default" and just
say "option" as in "authoring tools provide an option" - Please explain
to me what use of the word "default" adds in this context.

JR: The term is a defined term (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110718/#def-Default-Option). The problem with just saying option is that it can be off with no way for the user to know it should be on. That said, we have "B.4.1.1 Features Active by Default" which perhaps could list all of the applicable SCs it is referring to.

testability of "-generated for- publishing" (I know we have a definition
of "publishing" but is this testing "intent" (subjective))?

JR: It is content that is in a form that can be consumed by end-users. The problem with saying automatically published is that we also want to take into account this situation (a user works with a tool to create an HTML file, once satisfied the user saves and closes the file, the tool optimizes the file on close inadvertently removing accessibility information, the user who is unaware of the introduced problem uploads the file to their web server).

Is it always
clear and distinct when content is generated for publishing as opposed to
not generated for publishing or generated not for publishing - emphasis on
"content" vs. "generation" and placement of "not"?

JR: I would say: If end-users can access the content without the author taking any further action.

How soon after the end of an authoring session?  Always before the beginning of
the next authoring session or exiting the tool?

JR: Any time after (1sec, 10mins, a year, whatever).

I think WCAG WG had a concern about use of
"accessible" in front of "web content" (the idea being that no content is
absolutely accessibile to all and in all situations), and preferred the
term "WCAG20-compliant" content?  I know we talked about it at last teleconference
and ATAG situation may be different, but do we have language to this effect in
ATAG (if WCAG WG has questions others may as well..)

JR: Yes, see my post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0050.html

Do we have a definition or clear understanding of what specifically is or
is not "automatically generated" web content?

JR: Yes, please check for definitions (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#def-Content-Auto-Gen)

B.1.1.2 -  replace "Authors" with "Authoring tools" to make clear
that authoring tools are in fact being tested, not authors..
What exactly is a "default option" - can we get rid of "default" and just
say "option" as in "authoring tools provide an option" - Please explain
to me what use of the word "default" adds in this context.. Do we use the
term "default option" anywhere else in ATAG2.0?

JR: See above.

for (a) maybe
say "Conformant:" or "WCAG20-conformant:" instead of "Accessible:", and then
further along in sentence say "WCAG20-conformant" (per rationale mentioned above)?

JR: We can't because of the "accessibility supported" requirement in WCAG2.

for (b) maybe say "authoring tools provide prompts" (slight rewording of
"authors are prompted.." - per rationale above) - also maybe say "WCAG20-conformant
information" instead of "required accessibility information" (per rationale above)
How can one objectively determine what is or is not -required- accessibility information
(required by what/whom in what context)?

JR: See definition of Accessibility Information (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110718/#def-Accessibility-Information)

for (c), what spefically is an "automatic generation process" (for example, when does it
begin/end, what authoring tool components are involved, etc.)?  how long after the automatic
generation process (until another automatic generation process)?
How much accessibility checking is sufficient for this SC (for example, on one element,
all elements, etc.)?  What exactly qualifies as "accessibility checking"?  Accessibility checking
on what exactly (for example, only automatically generated content, or what)?
Is the performance information made available to the author or is it hidden?   If the latter,
how can the author know that it has been done?

JR: I don't have time for any more here.

for (d), reference applicable comments for (c), plus how long after the process is the
prompting done, and how does the author know what accessibility checking to perform (does the
authoring tool provide sufficient information in the prompt so that the author can do what is
needed - if so, then how do you measure sufficiency)?

for NOTE 2, do you want to say "included in/controlled by the authoring tool" instead of "specified by..
developer" (what happens if there are multiple developers?)

JR: For our purposes there is one developer (it could be one person or a group of people working together).

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 18:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:01 UTC