W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Query re authoring tool compliance

From: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:49:43 +0930
Message-ID: <E1962E8F1DF0D411878300A0C9ACB0F90246423C@exstaff4.magill.unisa.edu.au>
To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dear all

Another query regarding interpretation of W3C compliance level requirements -
this time relating specifically to authoring tools.

As many of you aware I have raised concerns from time to time about the use of
Word 2000 or XP for the creation of Web pages. However there are many people
who choose Word because it is a tol with which they are familiar. I am
preparing a document listing all of the reasons for NOT using Word as Web
authoring tool and am cross-referencing each problem with the relevant WCAG
checkpoints and ATAG checkpoints.

I aim for triple-a compliance as indicated in my previous posting, however I
cannot assume that more rigorous benchmark will be the position taken by
management. I am clear about the problems and also the relationship between
these problems and the relevant checkpoints. However, I find again that I am
needing guidance about interpretation of compliance levels. Here are my
specific queries:

Does ATAG checkpoint 2.2 (ensure that the tool automatically generates valid
markup) which is a priority 1 requirement also refer to valid html and valid
CSS output? Word 2000 generated Web pages fail both html and CSS validation

The checkpoints relating to use of style sheets (checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.4,
3.5, 3.6 and 3.7) are all priority 2 level requirements. I can understand why
issues relating to use of styles for layout are only P2 checkpoints - but
surely the use of a style sheet for markup is a high priority otherwise users
cannot override the font settings assigned by the author. Word does use styles,
but it generates in line styles that cannot be over riden by user style sheets.
Isn't that a MAJOR accessibility issue for visually impaired people? Then why
only a priority 2 requirement and not priority 1?

What is the priority level of ATAG Guideline 4. Provide ways of checking and
correcting inaccessible content. It is listed under relative priority points
for Priority 1 ATAG checkpoints but I understand the relative checkpoints may
be met at any one of the 3 priority levels. So how critical is this feature?
Would something like AccVerify which is a free verification tool that works
within the FrontPage environment comply with this requirement providing
associated instructions are available to authors about how to repair
accessibility problems that may be identified by AccVerify?

Any additional points that I can include to support my case about the need to
use proper Web authoring tools will be very much appreciated.

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 04:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC