Re: [SPAM] In response to your comment on W3C/WAI's ATAG 2.0

Dear Jeanne,

I realise that I'm a bit late with my response.
But that is not complicating matters, because the proposed changes are
acceptable.

Many thanks to.the ATAG working group.


With kind regards,

Raph de Rooij
Logius, the Netherlands


2013/10/7 Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>

> Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough comment about the ATAG 2.0
> Last Call Working Draft of 10 September 2013.  The Authoring Tool
> Accessibility Guidelines  Working Group (AUWG) has considered your
> comment and made the changes itemized below.
>
> Please review our changes in response to your comment, and reply to us
> by 14 October 2013 to say whether you accept them or to discuss
> additional concerns you have with our response. If we do not hear from
> you by that date, we will mark your comment as "no response" and close
> it. If you need more time to consider your acknowledgement, please let
> us know. You can respond by email to public-atag2-comments@w3.org. Note
> that this list is publicly archived.
>
> 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.
>
> You can see this change integrated in the most recent Editors' Draft at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2013/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20131002/#sc_b315
>
> ---start of proposal---
>
> Intent of Success Criterion B.3.1.5:
>
> The intent of this success criterion is to facilitate and encourage
> 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 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---
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeanne Spellman
> W3C Staff Contact to AUWG
> jeanne@w3.org
>