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

Conformance use-cases

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 10:18:02 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B38CACD1@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
Hi everyone,

We were discussing the variety of use-cases that will be looking to conform with ATAG, these are the ones that come to mind (in no particular order but numbered for reference):

1. A web-based product (e.g. Wordpress) that can be used as a complete system in itself.
In this case the person looking at ATAG is likely to be a volunteer developer or community member testing the system. They would test and pass/fail/NA each success criteria (SC).

2. A web-based product (e.g. Defacto) that is sold as a product or service. It utilises a 3rd party editor (e.g. TinyMCE) that can be tested independently. 
However, the integration of an editor also affects the interface, so testing with ATAG should be of the full product including 3rd party extentions.

3. A desktop based product (e.g. Dreamweaver) that aims to meet SC in part A, but not all of part B. 
The person looking at ATAG is likely to be a product manager or an accessibility specialist in the team. They would check 
In this case they would want a conformance check to basically say "Meets all of ATAG 2.0 except B.3.1"

4. An "enterprise solution" for a large organisation, that includes document management, media asset management, web content management, a 3rd party conformance tool (accessibility and quality control), and an external mapping tool (e.g. Google maps). 
The person looking at ATAG would probably be the integrator (possibly a project manager), who would want each of the tools mentioned to say what they do regarding ATAG.
The main tool is the CMS, but the document and media asset management need to do their bit. For example, Word documents could form the basis for web-content, and they are converted to HTML automatically.

5. An extension tool (e.g. accessibility checker or WYSIWYG editor) that provides testing of HTML based pages and assistance with fixes.
In this case it does not meet many SC except the ones it is focused upon.
The product manager wants to make clear to it's clients (CMSs) what SC it helps them meet, and how easy it is to integrate.

6. A web-service (e.g. Facebook or Amazon comments), where the scope is quite focused but important.

Two things come to mind when outlining these:

Do B.4.x & B.3.1 need to account for third party tools/extensions? For example, if using a 3rd party checking tool, how do you meet B.3.1.1 or B.4.1.1?

Secondly, I think it is important that a tool can say it doesn't meet certain SC without prejudice, so the "ATAG ready" moniker could be used for tools that fit into a workflow.

WCAG takes the point of view that the thing that needs to conform is what the user downloads. In our case it is everything that contributes to that download.

The 'thing' that needs to meet ATAG is the workflow the author uses, rather than a tool per-se. 

Therefore, our first-line audience is the tool-makers, but it eventually gets used by the procurers/users.

As a procurer buying a (set of) product(s), I want to know from a CMS if it:
- Meets ATAG (i.e. everything needed is there).
- Is ATAG ready (and what extra things it will need).
- Doesn't meet ATAG because it fails a SC that can't be worked around with a 3rd party tool.

Kind regards,


Alastair Campbell         |  Director of User Experience
t. +44 (0)117 929 7333    |  m. 07970 879 653

Nomensa Email Disclaimer:

(c) Nomensa Ltd, King William House, 13 Queen Square Bristol BS1 4NT, 
GB 771727411, C#4214477
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 10:18:47 UTC

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