- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:31:44 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
This is a review of ATAG 2.0 (Working draft 14 March 2003, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-ATAG20-20030314/ ) based on attempting to apply the draft version in an analysis of the Kung-Log authoring tool, a shareware software program on Mac OS X for Web log authoring. (See http://www.maccessibility.com/archive/000544.php for the full analysis and recommendations.) Several issues came up with regards to the guidelines draft during this analysis process, and those will be addressed in the order that they appear in the document. (Point on document structure: The use of outline numbers such as 1.1, 1.4, etc may cause confusion with checkpoints which are similarly numbered.) Table of Contents: There are no links in the TOC to document 1.4, 1.5, 1.6. Introduction (document 1.1): It should be noted here that the definition of an authoring tool _does_ cover the case of Kung-Log. Priorities (document 1.4) and Conformance (document 1.5): These priorities are defined by single words and are hard to understand. It would be better to adopt something structured like WCAG 2.0's levels for compliance. Accessible Authoring Practices (document 1.6): These practices are not well-defined within the W3C. When we say "support accessible authoring practices" there is little sense of what that means. Audience and Use: The audience for these guidelines should be addressed, as well as what knowledge is assumed by the reader. Suggest the following: The primary audience for this document is the software developer involved in creating authoring tools. Familiarity with applicable accessibility specifications for the appropriate platform is assumed, as is familiarity with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. In addition to serving as a guide and checklist during the software development process, the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines are also designed to be used by third parties to evaluate the accessibility of existing tools. Is this what we want to say? On to the Guidelines and Checkpoints themselves: Checkpoint 1.1: Apple's Mac OS X developer guidelines for accessibility do not include the distinctions required in order to break this down into priorities one, two, and three. This makes the checkpoint very hard to evaluate, as a software developer would not only be required to know the Apple guidelines but also apply an arbitrary checkpoint level -- something which is a matter for discussion even among working groups. The priority assignments here need re-examination. Checkpoint 1.2: Does an authoring tool, such as Kung-Log, which only provides text level editing meet this requirement for the content? If this is a special case, should it be a separate checkpoint from 1.1? If so why? Checkpoint 1.3: Some documents may not have structure, if they are virtual documents within an authoring system, as with Kung-Log. Checkpoint 1.4: Kung-Log is a source editor, and thus the editing environment is always different from the appearance of that content. Does this mean that this checkpoint does not apply? Am I correct in assuming that the "Preview" function qualifies as well? Checkpoint 1.5: This is a confusing checkpoint. It seems to assume a certain kind of editing which has no meaning in certain contexts, as with Kung-Log. Checkpoint 1.6: Does the tool fail automatically if it does not allow a match against text-only vs. markup? Checkpoint 2.1: What does this mean? I'm serious. I have no idea what "use" means in this context. I don't know how someone knows whether or not they have satisfied this checkpoint. The success criteria -- including "inform the author" -- seem unrelated and random, making it even harder to know when "use" has been satisfied. As currently written, this checkpoint seems to have no specific meaning. It should be rewritten into several checkpoints or incorporated into existing checkpoints; as it is now, it is too vague to be useful. Checkpoint 2.2: See, this is a better checkpoint. Perhaps 2.1 simply needs to be success criteria for this checkpoint rather than a separate checkbox. Checkpoint 3.1: Dependence on WCAG (at the relative priority level especially) raises the question of those checkpoints in WCAG which cannot be measured by machine tests, such as "clear and simple language" or the legitimacy of alt text on images. Does ATAG 3.1 require that an authoring tool prompt the user to meet the "clear and simple language" requirement of WCAG? If so, how should this be accomplished? If not, then which WCAG checkpoints are covered by ATAG 3.1? Does ATAG 3.1 require that an authoring tool assist the user in providing an appropriate alt text attribute? If so, how should this be accomplished? If not...? Checkpoint 3.2: Is it required that the authoring tool must also function as an evaluation and repair tool? Or is it sufficient, as I suggested with Kung-Log, to provide a hook into an existing analysis tool? Checkpoint 3.4: This was particularly confusing to the developer of Kung-Log; he suggested that the point of his checkpoint was lost on him. As a priority 1 checkpoint, this must always be done -- but it is dependent on the idea that bogus alt text will be created. Not all software creates these alternatives, especially as the requirement to provide such functionality is only a priority 3 checkpoint (see ATAG 3.5). Therefore, perhaps this simply needs to be a success criteria for 3.5 instead of a separate, priority 1 checkpoint. Checkpoint 3.8: I don't understand the "relative priority" here. WCAG checkpoints are not "process" and so there is no equivalency of checkpoints which can be imported for this rule. Checkpoint 4.1: This seems like a success criteria for checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, and 3.6. This is a priority one checkpoint, but those checkpoints are, respectively, relative priority, relative priority, priority 3, and priority 3. This is confusing. Checkpoint 4.2: I'm not sure how well the phrasing of this checkpoint's dependency meshes with either WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0. It seems hard to understand -- is it a priority 2 ATAG checkpoint to meet the minimum requirements for _all_ WCAG checkpoints and make them easy to use? Confusing. Glossary: Where's the definition of the following terms referring to people? * Author * Developer * User -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 17:27:39 UTC