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

Re: Query re authoring tool compliance

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204301514580.16339-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Denise Wood wrote:

  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
  tests.

If the tool claims to produce HTML, or XHTML, or CSS, then yes, these need to
be produced as valid code to meet the requirement. If the tool produces
output and provides its own DTD or schema reference (e.g. by a DOCTYPE
declaration) then that needs to be available for validation, too.

  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?

It is possible to override inline styes ith a user style sheet. It's a pain
to do - really frustratingly difficult. That's only P2 and not P1. (This is
why I don't think level-A is a useful target except as an intermediary
progress stage for developers).

  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?

The guideline doesn't have a priority - it is just a general principle.
There are 5 checkpoints in that guideline, and the first two have relative
priority.

Relative priority merans that the requirement applies, in relation to a
collection of different requirements - in this case each checkpoint of WCAG -
and that the priority of the checkpoint for a given sub-requirement is based
on the priority of the sub-requirement.

For instance, checking for a WCAG PP1 problem like meeting checkpoint 14.1 -
write clearly and simply (my paraphrase) - is a P1 requirement for an
authoring tool.

A tool that provides an explicit check for each WCAG p1 checkpoint meets
checkpoint 4.1 at the level of P1 - so can conform to ATAG at single-A if it
meets all the other checkpoints, at least to single A. But a tool that does
not check for each and every WCAG p1 or p2 checkpoint cannot conform to ATAG
double-A because it would fail to meet this checkpoint at P2 level. (A check
can be a request to the author to verify something, like Bobby does for
things it can't do, as well as an automated test like AccVerify does).

  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.

If you enforce the requirement for content meeting the guidelines that will
imply support for proper tools...

chaals
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 15:31:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:04 GMT