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

RE: Conformance use-cases

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 15:49:08 -0400
To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocad.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308E9C5B73E@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
Could you define precisely what you mean by "component-level" and "authoring process-level" conformance?   Would these be "pieces" of an ATAG conformance model?   The W3C Quality Assurance Framework Specificafion Guidelines (SpecGL) say in Good Practice 1: Define the specification's conformance model in the conformance clause:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-model-gp
and further in Requirement 6 : Create conformance labels for each part of the conformance model:
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conf-label-principle

Do we need further discussion/clarification of the precise nature of an ATAG2.0 conformance model?
Maybe a diagram..

Thanks and best wishes]
Tim Boland NIST

PS - while we're at it, maybe we could make sure that the ATAG2.0 specification satisifes all of the 13 listed requirements of SpecGL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
and as many of the good practices as appropriate? 
 

________________________________________
From: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocad.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:00 PM
To: Alastair Campbell; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conformance use-cases

Thanks Alastair, this is a great start!

An alternative phrasing for "ATAG-Ready" might be to make a distinction between "Component-level" and "Authoring Process-level" conformance.

Cheers,
Jan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> Sent: November 1, 2011 6:18 AM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Conformance use-cases
>
> 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.
>
> Overall:
> 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
>
> --
> Alastair Campbell         |  Director of User Experience
> t. +44 (0)117 929 7333    |  m. 07970 879 653
>
> Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
> http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer
>
> (c) Nomensa Ltd, King William House, 13 Queen Square Bristol BS1 4NT,
> GB 771727411, C#4214477
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 19:50:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 19:50:16 GMT