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

RE: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:59:41 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB0367745A@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi Gregg,

My comments are inline, marked "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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 11, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0



On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:


Hi all,

So WCAG-WG still feels that we are still not being clear enough that meeting WCAG2 is not a guarantee of accessibility to all people (btw: for more on Gregg's perspective see his message to WAI-IG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2011JulSep/0008.html).

This is a bit tricky because we use the term "accessible" over a 100 times in ATAG2, all grounded upon two definitions:
-          accessible content (WCAG): Web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA).
-          accessible authoring tool user interfaces: Authoring tool user interfaces that meet the success criteria of a level in Part A of ATAG 2.0.

In their reply, WCAG-WG make two suggestions: "WCAG 2.0 conforming", which we can't use because of the WCAG 2.0 "accessibility-supported" requirement, and "WCAG2.0 accessible". Since we already append (WCAG 2.0) to terms that refer to those guidelines for their definitions, perhaps we can simply be more clear and say "accessible content (WCAG 2.0)".

Not sure I understand the concern about "WCAG 2.0 conforming"

JR: The problem is explained here: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-rel-wcag
Basically, in order for web content to be said to conform, the availability of AT and user agents needs to be taken into account, which is much easier from a WCAG perspective (e.g. the webmaster of a bank's intranet site) than from an ATAG perspective (e.g. a web-based authoring tool that is open to all). Previously, we tried to weasel around that requirement and still say "conforms" but it was called out by a commenter.

But you can't use "accessible content (WCAG 2.0)"  if appending (WCAG 2.0) implies the definition came from WCAG 2.0 because we carefully did not define "accessible" or "accessible content" -- so you would be breaking your own convention (and implying WCAG 2.0 did define this term)

JR: We aren't appending "(WCAG)" to imply that the definition came from WCAG 2.0, we did it to clarify that the definition is grounded on "meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA)", but I do see how it could be misinterpreted.

But can you explain your comment about "accessibility-supported" being a problem in saying "WCAG 2.0 conforming?"

JR: See above.

otherwise I think you could use          "WCAG2-accessible content"
though I think WCAG2-conforming  is a better adjective.

JR: I agree that WCAG2 conforming is much nicer sounding. If you (and the relevant WCAG-WG folks) agree with our concern about the "accessibility supported" issue, is there another editorial way to handle this? E.g. we could always say "conforming*" where the "*" would link to our explanation about "accessibility supported"?


This leaves "accessible authoring tool user interfaces". So as not to be out of step with WCAG 2.0, we should make sure that in Part A we are recommending steps that will increase accessibility rather than guarantee it to everyone.

Here again - you might just substitute   ATAG-conforming authoring tool user interfaces     or   WCAG2-conforming authoring tool user interfaces

JR: We also cover non-web-based tools so we wouldn't use a WCAG reference. On the other hand, this issue is much easier to handle because there are not the constant references to WCAG for which we need a shorthand.

Just fodder for your discussion.

JR: Thanks for the fodder :)

Cheers,
Jan




Anyhow, I think we should discuss this on Monday.

Cheers,
Jan

--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto: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> [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richards, Jan
Sent: August 11, 2011 1:37 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Subject: FW: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

Here is WCAG-WG's reply:

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com<mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com>>
Date: August 10, 2011 10:33:53 PM EDT
To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>>, Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca<mailto:jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca>>
Cc: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

The WCAG Working Group has reviewed your responses, and we accept all of them except WCAGWG17.

We have run into issues in the past with calling content accessible, since no content is completely accessible to all people. We strongly encourage you to find a different term.

We can say that it is WCAG 2.0 conforming. or perhaps even "WCAG2.0 accessible". But we certainly do not say or imply that WCAG makes pages accessible as an absolute and in fact go to great pains to say that meeting ALL WCAG, even at AAA and even if you do all the advisory techniques, will not make pages accessible to all. We feel that the use of the term "accessible content" raises unrealistic expectations.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>> wrote:
WCAG Working Group:

Thank you for your comments on the 8 July 2010 Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/). The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 26 August 2011 to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our response. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will mark your comment as "no response" and close it. If you need more time to consider your acknowledgement, please let us know. You can respond by email to public-atag2-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-atag2-comments@w3.org>. Note that this list is publicly archived.

Since many of the comments were related, we have kept all the comments on a topic together in a spreadsheet format, so you can see your comments in the context of the others.  You can search for your specific comments by searching for your code "WCAGWG". The spreadsheet of comments is located at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html

The AUWG has published a new working draft of ATAG 2.0 and Implementing ATAG 2.0, so you can see the results of your comments in the document.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-ATAG20-20110721/

Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue, you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews) to public-atag2-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-atag2-comments@w3.org>. Formal objections will be reviewed during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in
advance of the meeting.

Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of ATAG 2.0.

Regards,


Jutta Treviranus, AUWG Chair
Jeanne Spellman, AUWG Staff Contact
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 19:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 August 2011 19:00:07 GMT