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: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:41:37 +0100
To: "Boland Jr, Frederick E." <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B37315A9@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
Regarding B.1.1.1: 
> "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.."

It means that someone reading through the guidelines knows (at this point) that the requirement is for automatically generated content to be accessible unless the user says otherwise.

I take Jan's point that B.4.1.1 does say this type of features should be active by default, but I think it's a lot clearer to say it at the time as well. Otherwise you have to go back and re-read guidelines in a different light.


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

I don't think so, I read it as: The design of the tool defines when something is going to be published, so that is where this criteria should apply.

I think Jan answered most of the other comments, but regarding this one:
> "How much accessibility checking is sufficient for this SC (for 
> example, on one element, all elements, etc.)?"

Surely that would be whatever elements are being published as part of this process/update, and against what checks can be automatic from WCAG?

Good point about whether it is visible to the user. If you are using (c) Automatic Checking, it could check, fail, and carry on. Do we deal with failed checks somewhere else?

Kind regards,

-Alastair
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 08:42:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 August 2011 08:42:22 GMT