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

ATAG2.0 - comments/questions on SC B.1.2.1

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:03:28 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308D148F45F@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
Going through spec a little at a time..

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

B.1.2.1 - What is a "restructuring transformation"?  Please define.. I see a definition for
"content transformations" but how is this different?  same with "recoding transformations" -
how is recoding different from restructuring?  What is being transformed?  Is there a defined
begin and end point of a transformation?

for (a) - what exactly constitutes - accessibility information - (I know we define it, but do
we need to change definition in light of recent discussions)?  Does this relate to the
"WCAG-capable" discussion at the last teleconference?  "All" accessibility information?  Some?
How much is sufficient?   What exactly does it mean to "preserve" -information- (or how can one
objectively test that -information- has been "preserved" (for example, is it the semantics of
the -information- in a different form, or does the syntax/representation of the -information-
have to be the same?  Is the -output- the output of the -transformation- (are we "comparing"
the output to the input at predetermined points in time?)

for (b) - the comments I made for the beginning of B.1.1.2 ("author", "default option", "authoring
tools provide a warning" - suggested wording, etc.)
apply here as well..  see comments for (a) above re: accessibility information (typo - should
have same term as part (a) for consistency - for example, (a) has (WCAG) here but (b) doesn't?)
"All" or "some" accessibility information may be lost (is it possible to "quantify")?
Does the warning always occur before the transformation is initiated?  Is there always evidence of
the warning in some modality?  I think that there is always a possibility that information may be
lost when any change (transformation) is made, so I'm not sure what additional benefit the "may be lost"
gives (unless there's a much higher probability of loss when certain changes (tranformations) occur?
It depends on the nature of the transformation (who/what has control over the end
state of the transformation, how "drastic" the transformation is, how many transformations take place,
etc.).  For example, a minor change of one word or tag entirely within an authoring tool would seem to
be less drastic than when the entire contents are transferred to an entirely different tool or environment
under completely different control..

for (c) how -soon- after the transformation (for example, before another transformation or before exiting the
authoring tool?)  How much accessibility checking is -automatically- performed (for example, on one element/
word, all elements/all content - how much is sufficient/enough?)  On what particularly is accessibility
checking performed (not specified).. Also see comments above for "transformation"..
Do we need to change our definition of "checking, accessibility" in light of recent WCAG-related discussions?
I assume that the accessibility checking is automatically performed by the authoring tool being tested by this
SC - is this always true (it's not explicitly specified here)?

for (d) , see comments above for (c) - is there always evidence of a prompt for testing purposes? - how much
accessibility checking?  On what?

NOTE - typo - change "criteria" to "criterion" - what exactly is an "output technology" (is this term defined?
- I know "technology, web content" is)   What specifically is an "-included?- technology for conformance?  Could you
please explain further and give examples?  Does this relate to the ATAG conformance section in some way?
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 13:03:54 UTC

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