W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2012

FW: Individual comments on ATAG 2.0

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:43:14 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AACE9A@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Comments received from Gottfried Zimmermann.

Cheers,
Jan


-----Original Message-----
From: Gottfried Zimmermann (List) [mailto:zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com] 
Sent: June-02-12 3:52 PM
To: public-atag2-comments@w3.org
Cc: 'cooper'; 'Janina Sajka'
Subject: Individual comments on ATAG 2.0

Thank you for preparing this draft.  

Here are my individual comments on the ATAG 2.0 draft at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ATAG20-20120410/: 

(1) "more accessible..."

Problem: In the document, it is stated several times that these guidelines will make authoring tools "more accessible", but without giving a reference point. The reader is left with the question "more accessible than what?".
Probably, the authors don't want to claim that the guidelines make authoring tools FULLY accessible, and this is understandable.  
Proposed modification: "increase accessibility of ..." rather than "more accessible".

(2) A.3.5.1 Text Search

Quote: "(b) Match: Matching results can be made visible to authors and given focus".
Problem: The words "made visible" should be changed to "presented", in order not to give the impression that the presentation of search results should be presented in visual form only.

(3) Guideline A.3.7

Quote: "Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents."
Problem: The word "in-market" is not defined which makes this guideline rather fuzzy and hard to test.
Proposed modification: Add a glossary entry for "in-market user agents".

(4) B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG)

Quote: If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not."
Problem: What's missing here is that the authoring tool should clearly mark the accessible options vs. the inaccessible options.  Cf. Guideline B.2.4.2, where this requirement is included for templates: "B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the templates are provided such that the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options."
Proposed modification: Add to B.2.2.1: "... and the options are provided such that the option selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options."

(5) B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG)

Quote: "If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses."
Problem: "range" is defined as: "More than one item within a multi-item set."
One template only is too few as a requirement. There should be at least one accessible template for every use case.
Proposed modification: "If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for every use case."

(6) B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG)

Quote: "A range of examples in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices (WCAG)."
Problem: "range" is too weak.
Proposed modification: "For every use case, at least one example in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrates accessible authoring practices (WCAG)."

General note: The European Mandate 376 is currently developing accessibility guidelines for public procurement in Europe.  In the current draft of the resulting standard, ETSI EN 301 549, a separate subsection on authoring tools is included. However, no reference to ATAG 2.0 is made (in contrast to WCAG 2.0 which is frequently referenced).  It would be good to have EN 301
549 point to ATAG 2.0, rather than creating its own guidelines.  But it may be already too late.

Best regards,
Gottfried Zimmermann

___________________________________________________

 Prof. Dr. Gottfried Zimmermann
 Access Technologies Group, Germany
___________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 15:43:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 June 2012 15:43:45 GMT