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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:13:54 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "Boland Jr, Frederick E." <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03677C7A@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi Alastair,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Alastair Campbell
> Sent: August 12, 2011 4:42 AM
> To: Boland Jr, Frederick E.
> Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: some comments/questions on B.1.1.1 and B.1.1.2 of ATAG2.0
> 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.

JR: Agreed. Maybe we can add a note to the implementing info in B.4.1.1 pointing out this wording.

> > 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

JR: Right. And if the checking system is not up to par then the tool will fail the checking requirement (B.3.1.1) anyway.

> 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?

JR: I think it is common sense that the user is somehow informed of failed checks. 


> Kind regards,
> -Alastair
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 14:14:26 UTC

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