UAAGReview Comments For Authoring Guidelines 2.0 Last Call

UAAG Members:

These are the comments I am proposing to send to the official comment address for Authoring tool guidelines 2.0 last call.  This is on our agenda to discuss on 9/2/2010.

You can find the last call document at http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/.



1.
A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized alternative content is available for editing view content renderings, then the alternative content is provided to authors.
UAReview: (and other SC) this and other success criteria were at time very hard to understand (for us it depended on the line breaks). suggest changing 'editing view' to 'editing-view'. it may help the reader understand the content rendering and alternative content are in the editing-view.

2.
A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.2]
(a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or
the goal of A.3.7 is to ensure the preview is accessible.
if A.3.7.2.a is true, there is no guarantee that the 3rd party user agent is accessible. A.3.7.2.a only says there is a preview, A.3.7.2.b the preview must be accessible according to UAAG. the way A.3.7.2 is written having a preview and the preview being accessible could be mutually exclusive.
UAReview: Suggest changing
(a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or to be
(a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party accessible user agent;

3.
1.            Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited, such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, documentation, etc.
UAReview:What about authoring systems that offer end-to-end publishing and web server publication/configuration.  It should be clear where any line for AU responsibility ends.

4.
A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings.
UAReview:Broaden this to any settings that impact accessibility?

5.
B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.
UAReview: How does this differ from just making any templates accessible?  One would assume all templates offered should have equal accessibility.  What happens if the end user selects a template with less accessibility?

6.
B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.4] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.
UAReview: The definition for prominence says in part:
For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if:
both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes); if item B is emphasized, then so is item A;

so if the accessible option is at the bottom of a menu separated from the less accessible option by 10 entires, this is acceptable?  If the list has 25 items and the user must scroll to see the accessible option, is this then acceptable?