RE: Public Comment on ATAG 2.0

Hi all,

Here is my suggestion for a response (marked JR):

The AUWG recognizes the important role that authoring tools can play in managing compliance at the level of websites and enterprises, as opposed to simply evaluating content on a page-by-page basis.  That is why ATAG 2.0 already includes the following success criterion:

- B.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results: If the authoring tool provides checks, then the authoring tool can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. (Level AA) (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ATAG20-20130910/#sc_b315)

The intent, examples, and related resources for B.3.1.5 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20130910/#sc_b315) specifically mention "increasing the interoperability of separated checking and repair tools" and make multiple references to EARL. 

In the opinion of the Working Group, this success criterion covers the normative requirements you proposed. However, we believe that the intent for the success criterion would benefit from some of the examples in your rationale. Therefore, we will make the following change to the (informative) intent:

---start of proposal---

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.1.5:

The intent of this success criterion is to facilitate automated use of accessibility checking results, which can benefit both authors and end users in multiple ways: 

- Supports author choice of tools: Programmatic association of checking results enables independent checking and repair tools repair tools to interoperate, so authors can choose the tools that meet their own needs.

- Supports diverse workflows: Programmatic association of checking results enables accessibility evaluation and repair processes to be separated, supporting a wide variety of workflows including those necessary in complex and multi-stakeholder environments. For example, a complex CMS with a continuously running website accessibility checker might automatically queue up certain issues to be repaired later by a different author within a quality assurance view.

- Supports evaluation result aggregation: Programmatic association of checking results enables systems that can aggregate evaluation results for large-scale monitoring, auditing, ranking, and research purposes. Aggregation of manual and semi-automated evaluation results are especially important, since they cannot be produced on-demand as is the case for fully automated evaluations.

- Supports accessible resource discovery: Systems that support accessible resource discovery take the accessibility preferences of end users into account when fetching content. This allows authors to offer multiple versions of content with differing accessibility levels while still enabling end users to receive versions that are accessible to them.

The success criterion does not specify the format of the programmatic association, which may be specific (e.g., individual check results) or more general (e.g., WCAG 2.0 conformance level). However, formats that include specific checking results are typically more useful for accessible resource discovery because individual end users may have preferences for certain types of accessibility information (e.g., captions), but not for others (e.g., audio descriptions).

---end of proposal---

Cheers,
Jan



> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: ATAG 2.0
> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:48:53 +0000
> Resent-From: public-atag2-comments@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:52:04 +0000
> From: Rooij, R.P.L.A. de (Raph) - Logius <raph.de.rooij@logius.nl>
> To: public-atag2-comments@w3.org <public-atag2-comments@w3.org>
> CC: Rooij, R.P.L.A. de (Raph) - Logius <raph.de.rooij@logius.nl>
> 
> Dear ATAG working group,
> 
> First of all, thank you for making the ATAG 2.0 last call working draft available.
> I have read the document on http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ATAG20-

> 20130910/ and I really liked it.
> 
> However, I do have one comment.
> Currently, ATAG 2.0 does not address the subject that is related to
> transparency, compliance management and accountability. The importance
> of accountability in online information and service delivery is growing.
> Authoring tools can play a key role here, since checking assistance - and
> helping authors decide on potential web content accessibility problems – is
> not only valuable on an operational level, but also on the managerial level.
> Technically, it is easy to offer a mechanism to capture and store the results of
> checks performed by authors[1]. By doing so, authoring tools become key
> instruments in providing input for compliance management systems. Such
> systems help website owners to better organise their accountability,
> resulting is more transparency. Not only regarding the level of conformance
> to the web accessibility specification, but also regarding the performance of
> website owners on the issue of web accessibility.
> 
> [1]: The Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is W3C's specification to
> capture and store evaluation results
> 
> The following success criteria in ATAG 2.0 are related:
> •  Part B: Support the production of accessible content
>      •  Principle B.3. Authors are supported in improving the accessibility of
> existing content
>          •  Guideline B.3.1. Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems
>              •  B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG)
>              •  B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide
>              •  B.3.1.4 Status Report
> 
> I am not sure whether the subject can be successfully addressed in the
> context of above success criteria.
> Therefore, I have not tried to fit my proposal into Part A or Part B.
> I a aware that adding a Part C to ATAG 2.0 is an unlikely suggestion; please
> consider it just a placeholder for the concretization of what is described in
> above paragraphs.
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Part C: Enhance transparency, compliance management and accountability
> 
> Principle C.1: Authoring tools offer capturing of evaluation results
> 
> Guideline C.1.1: Authors are able to re-use the results of evaluations against
> WCAG 2.0
> 
> Rationale: The results of accessibility testing are not only valuable during the
> process of  creating and editing content, but also for accountability purposes.
> Especially in situations where web accessibility is required by law, website
> owners are expected to be able to show proof that their content is
> successfully checked against W3C's web content accessibility guidelines.
> 
> Capturing the results of accessibility evaluation performed by authors has
> several advantages, including:
>      • enabling the re-use of self-evaluation results to substantiate WCAG 2.0
> conformance claims;
>      • enabling auditing as a credible alternative to product inspections;
>      • enabling aggregation of evaluation results (for research purposes,
> monitoring and ranking);
>      • enhancement of the scope of large-scale monitoring of web accessibility,
> which at present often is limited to a subset of WCAG 2.0 (i.e. what can be
> reliably programmatically determined);
>      • supporting the transition of web content accessibility management from
> a product-based approach to a process-based approach. This will especially
> help integrating the subject of web accessibility into complex and/or multi-
> stakeholder environments.
> 
> C.1.1.1 Capture of checking assistance results:
> If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to check against success
> criteria, the author can export the evaluation results, including the decisions
> that were made by the author during checking.
> 
> [...etc...]
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Please let me know if there is a need for clarification.
> 
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Raph de Rooij
> Logius, the Netherlands
> 
> raph.de.rooij@logius.nl
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet
> de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden,
> wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te
> verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van
> welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het
> elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts
> no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the
> electronic transmission of messages. .
> 
>

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 18:31:19 UTC