- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:13:51 -0400
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Here are the Microsoft comments to the working draft of 21 July 2011. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:28:20 +0000 From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com> To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org> CC: Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca>, Cherie Ekholm <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com> Hi Jeanne, Below is our response to AUWG's reply. Where there is no specific response, please consider the AUWG response satisfactory. Cherie and I will continue to assist AUWG to find appropriate solutions to the reminding issues. Original comment AUWG reply Response to reply MS1: Part B Application Notes #2 The examples seem contradictory because both examples pertains to automated content, yet they are treated differently. Please revise the example to reconcile the contradiction. AUWG: We have clarified the wording as follows: "Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the accessibility of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1). For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g. a third-party feed)." [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/03/28-au-minutes.html#item01] The concept of "automatically generate" content does not appear well defined. In the example where the developer changes the template of a content management system illustrates the issue. How is a template changed or configured by a developer considered "automatic"? It appears the example is saying the threshold of "automation" is something that is processed in an on-going basis by machine, regardless if it is configurable by human. If that is the case, we ask the working group to define what is "not automatic". We encourage deeper analysis of both the term "automatic" and related normative text. MS2: The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if ATAG is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be both. This leads to a great deal of structural problems. If it is for a single tool, then the SCs are too far reaching and the conformance requirement does not make room for a simple specialized tool to conform. How does ATAG 2.0 conformance work for something like a web accessibility toolbar, photo editor, FTP client, or a social networking site? You need to allow tool makers to say their tool does not provide certain function and it is not intended to do so, but the tool conforms where it is applicable. On the other hand, how would conformance work for a collection of tools where some criteria are met via a portion of the tools? Would one have to specify which tool(s) is used to conform to any given criterion? If the collection of tools include tool(s) in which the conformance claimer has no Intellectual property ownership, would the claimer then be held responsible for the accuracy of the claim of such tool? What if is there is discrepancy between the tool manufacturer and claimers? What if the collection is still not applicable to ATAG in full-for example, only relevant to part A? Is the collection deemed incomplete? Additionally, where does the value chain of the authoring process end? Without knowing the scope, then ATAG 2.0 may require consideration of software such as scanner application, a database, a web service, or enterprise backend systems. Does a mail client become a "web authoring tool" only when it sends a message to somebody who access their email via the web? How is one supposed to know if the mail recipient uses a web client? These are extremely difficult questions. But if left unanswered, ATAG 2.0 will not be viable in practice. The conformance section requires fundamental revision to be viable. Please revise accordingly. AUWG: We believe that we have addressed the issue in the following ways: (a) using conditional phrasing on many of the success criteria. (b) In addition we have added this wording in the conformance section: "Applicability of Success Criteria: The ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application, etc.), many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to authoring tools with the given features(s) (e.g., Success Criterion B.1.1.1 applies only to authoring tools that automatically generate web content after the end of authoring sessions). "[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/04-au-minutes.html#item07] Most of the questions posted in this comments are unaddressed by the reply of the update. Please review and address accordingly. Moreover, many of the updated success criteria are still lacking condition parameters. MS8: A.3.1 There should be exception and consideration for authoring environment/OS where there is no keyboard. Either add a condition for environment/OS with keyboard or add an exception. AUWG: Please see response to JC2<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html#jc2>[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03] Most touch screen devices do not use the keyboard for navigation. Keyboard is only used for text input. The current definition of keyboard interface does not work with the corresponding SC within the context of touch screen devices. Also, please refresh the term PDA. It is no longer in use today. MS17: A.3.7.2 Please remove the term "third-party" from option A. It is not appropriate. This is saying that Microsoft cannot use IE; Google cannot use Chrome; and Apple cannot use Safari. Please remove the term "third-party" completely. AUWG: We have replaced this term with "pre-existing" to distinguish "user agents" in the marketplace from something developed by the authoring tool developer from scratch.[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03] The term "pre"-existing is problematic as User agents may be updated to render newer types of content. We suggest the term "pre" be removed. MS19: A.4.1.1 "Undo" is normally not feasible for many scenarios for basic web form authoring tool or it depends on the browser to carry out the undo. In reality, most actions are reversible without having the "undo" function. If action is reversible, then why impose the specific function of "undo"? Change the SC to read: "Authoring actions are reversible or include warning to authors that the action is irreversible." AUWG: Reworded as follows: "For authoring actions, one of the following are true: (a) Reversible: The authoring action can be immediately reversed; or (b) Warn and Confirm: The authoring tool includes a warning to authors that the action is irreversible and requires authors to confirm the action before proceeding. - Note 1: Reversing actions (e.g. an "undo" function) are also considered authoring actions, meaning they must also meet this success criterion (e.g., a "redo" function). - Note 2: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e.g. typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action. - Note 3: It is acceptable to clear the authoring action history at the end of authoring sessions. "[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03] Please remove "immediately" from condition A. It introduces far too much subjectivity into the success criterion. OC13: -A.4.2.1 - Regarding documenting "all features" we feel this is too broad. This is a requirement for all users, not just people with disabilities so we feel it isn't applicable to ATAG. Even with narrowing to "all 'accessibility-related' features" this could still be very broad. For example, why would features that are programmatically determinable, such as keyboard shortcuts, need to be 'documented'? AUWG: This has been clarified: "A.4.2.2 Document All Features: The authoring tool includes documentation for its author-level user interface features." People with some disabilities benefit more from documentation than users in general. [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03] We need definition for "author-level user interface features". WCAGWG15: B.1.2.2(a): "Option to Save: authors have the option to save the accessibility information in another way (e.g., as a "comment", as a backup copy of the input);" It would be great to add "accessible" to "authors have the option to save the accessibility information in another [accessible] way." AUWG: We have taken a completely different approach to the preservation requirements in Guideline B.1.2. The requirements are now: - B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, then at least one of the following is true: Note: This success criteria only applies to transformations in which the output technology is an "included" technology for conformance. (a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the output; or (b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that accessibility information may be lost (e.g. when saving a vector graphic into a raster image format); or (c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or (d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking. AND - B.1.2.2 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility: If the authoring tool provides optimizing web content transformations then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A) AND - B.1.2.3 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved: If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output. (Level A). [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html] What are "restructuring transformations" and "recoding transformations"? We think the concept of "accessibility information" needs reexamination. We believe we are aiming at covering text alternative, audio description, captions, and content structure. If so, there should be a tighter definition of "accessibility information" and that there may be a better term to encompass these items. Moreover, I don't think these items are separated into A, AA, and AAA in WCAG 2.0. MS22: B.1.3 "...prior to publishing." Invalidates the SC. If a tool generates content in real time, there is no content to meet WCAG 2.0 prior to publishing. The concept has no meaning. Please remove "prior to publishing." In B.1.3.1, B.1.3.2, and B.1.3.3. AUWG: This wording has been removed and instead a distinction has been drawn between autogeneration during authoring sessions (B.1.1.2) and auto-generation after authoring session (B.1.1.1). - B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is accessible web content (WCAG). Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content. - B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is true: [Implementing B.1.1.2] Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors. Note 2: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content. (a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without author input; or (b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or (c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or (d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking. [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html] Please see above comments on the concept of "automatic". MS25: B.2.1.2 "Accessibility-related properties" is undefined. Please define. AUWG: Please see response to MS24<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html#ms24>[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html] The term is merely renamed "web content properties related to accessibility information" which is still undefined or at least ill defined. MS47: B.1.2 How does this apply to something like a copy and paste operation from a rich text editor to a plain text editor where structural info will be lost? Who is supposed to tell the author that the structure is gone? Please explain how the SC applies to copy-and-paste or cut-and-paste operations? AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html#wcagwg15>.[APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/05/16-au-minutes.html#item15] WCAGWG15 does not address the question. Additional comments: * We believe case sensitive search is considered an advanced search function. Thus, we recommend moving the case sensitive search portion of A 3.5.1 should be moved to AAA. * We recommend removal of the note on B 2.4.1. It appears contradictory to B 2.4.2 & B 2.4.3 * We recommend renaming B 2.4.3 to "Author-created template" * We do not believe the question about the problem regarding 3rd party making claim on authoring tools that they are not responsible for is properly addressed in the conformance text. -----Original Message----- From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jeanne@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:32 AM To: Alex Li Cc: Jutta Treviranus Subject: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 Dear Alex: 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 "MS". 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 Monday, 3 October 2011 15:14:04 UTC