- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:19:25 -0500
- To: Authoring Tools Guidelines List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Draft Response To "Do No Harm" Member Request for An Additional Conformance Level That Would Address ONLY The Accessibility of the Content Created by the Tool NOTE: This response is a work-in-progress and does not reflect a consensus on the part of the Authoring Tools Working Group. This response is divided into 6 parts: Part 1: Introduction Part 2: Response Part 3: Conclusion Part 4: References Part 5: Drafter's End Note Part 6: Appendix: Member A's Comments in Full INTRODUCTION The Authoring Tools Working Group (AUWG) has been asked by a W3C Member Organization to consider adding a conformance level lower than Single-A, which would signify that the product "does no harm" [reference 1] RESPONSE It is the decision of the AUWG to reject this proposal for the following reasons: 1. The AUWG's charter [reference 2] expressly states that the "mission" of the Working Group is to: * provide author support for creating accessible Web documents; * ensure an accessible user interface for authors with disabilities. A conformance level that addresses only the output of an authoring tool, and ignores the accessibility of the tool itself, would, therefore, violate the AUWG's charter. Furthermore, it is the consensus of the AUWG that this request has been made in the improper forum. The proper forum in which the member organization should have raised this issue was the AUWG's charter review, and not during Proposed Recommendation. 2. The AUWG has consistently, and repeatedly, reiterated its commitment to the fulfillment of the goals outlined in the ATAG's Abstract: This specification provides guidelines for Web authoring tool developers. Its purpose is two-fold: to assist developers in designing authoring tools that generate accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating an accessible authoring interface. Authoring tool users ("authors") can be enabled, encouraged and assisted to create accessible Web content through prompts, alerts, checking and repair functions, help files and automated tools. It is equally important that all people can be the authors of Web content, rather than merely recipients. The tools used to create this information must therefore be accessible themselves. Adoption of these guidelines will contribute to the proliferation of Web content that can be read by a broader range of readers and in authoring tools that can be used by a broader range of authors. [reference 3] And in the ATAG's Introduction: The guidelines in this specification are designed to help authoring tool developers design authoring tools that can be used by people regardless of disability, and that produce accessible Web content. [reference 4] As the above excerpts eloquently illustrate, it is the consensus of the AUWG that the web must not be reduced to a read-only experience for users with disabilities. The provision of a lowered conformance level, which addresses only the accessibility of the output generated by the tool, would, therefore, undermine the integrity and import of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, and is unacceptable to the AUWG. It is not sufficient that users with disabilities merely be recipients of accessible content--they, too, must be given the ability to make their individual and collective voices heard. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is the consensus of the AUWG that one cannot possibly "do no harm" without addressing the accessibility of the tool itself. Failure to do so would not only violate the Working Group's charter, but -- more significantly -- exclude a significant minority of users from expressing themselves online in an independent manner. References 1. http://www.w3.org/1999/11/AU-review-comments.html#Developer1 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991026/#Abstract 4. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991026/#Introduction Drafter's End Note: I chose to delete my reference to: an even greater number of users who, as quote situationally disabled unquote users, would benefit from the application of ATAG. as I felt it was slightly off-target, although given the target audience for this response, it might be appropriate. Appendix: MEMBER A's COMMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY We encourage the working group to focus on producing guidelines and/or techniques that will be more immediately intelligible and usable for practicing programmers, even at the expense of potentially creating difficulties within the W3C process. Particular areas of concern that have been identified are: 1. lack of clarity about what the guidelines expect to be done by the tool, versus what they expect to be done by the user of the tool; [CMN notes there has been discussion in a Member-only mailing list suggesting that the working group should formally identify which WCAG checkpoints must be dealt with by the tool and which can be ignored] 2. lack of clarity about the expected level of sophistication of the user of the tool; and 3. a document structure that allows considerable confusion about how many checkpoints there are. We suggest that the working group consider the possibility of a lower conformance level, indicating effectively that the product "does no harm" -- that it may not yet reach A level for supporting accessibility, but neither does it impair or interfere with efforts to provide accessibility. Such a conformance level could do a lot to help eliminate the problem of tools that do interfere with accessible markup. -------------------------------------------------------- He that lives on Hope, dies farting -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763 -------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net> WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html> --------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 22:13:08 UTC