W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG?

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@annotea.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:55:22 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040324184521.04a29b08@mail.annotea.org>
To: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Cc: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

At 02:17 PM 3/24/2004 -0800, Matt May wrote:
>On Mar 24, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote:
>>I think most of the data will end up to be presented to the humans in one 
>>way or the other even when it goes through some intermediate processing 
>>by the machines.
>
>MM:
>But we can't determine accessibility in a piece of content until it's 
>final form.

I agree in principle. (Although in my mind metadata may also be quite close 
to that final form. Especially if we define some style rules for presenting 
the metadata.)

Is it good practise if I have some metadata that includes properties for 
images but not properties for alternative equivalents for the images?
In this case I know that whatever style rules (hopefully we have style 
rules in the future) I choose to use for presenting that metadata for the 
user it will not be accessible. Of course we can merge information from 
different sources and maybe we finally get the equivalents, but I would 
prefer thinking about accessibility from the beginning.

These practices could be something that would go under XML accessibility 
guidelines? Or metadata accessibility guidelines?

In my mind authoring tools take care that the good practices are used e.g. 
when defining schemas and creating instances, but I think something else is 
needed to first define the practices.



>MRK:
>>It is good to keep accessibility in mind when storing, retrieving and 
>>processing data. In that way we can make sure that when the data is 
>>presented for the users it has a better chance to be accessible.
>
>MM:
>Systems that store, retrieve and process data are what we call authoring 
>tools.
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 draft defines "authoring 
>tool" [1] as:
>"Any software or service that authors may use to create or modify Web 
>content for publication."
>
>Note the subsection in that definition, titled "Indirect Authoring Functions":
>"Authors have control of only high-level parameters related to the 
>automated production of the resulting Web content. This may include 
>interfaces that assist the author to create and organize Web content 
>without the author having control over the markup or programming 
>implementation." That sounds like a whole lot of Web applications out 
>there, to me. Certainly anything that calls itself a content management 
>system, at least.
>
>It is ATAG's job to determine how to store, retrieve and process data in 
>Web-based applications in a way that ensures WCAG-conformant content.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040224/#what-auth-tool
>
>-
>m

Marja
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 14:14:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC