Re: The Problem of Web Based Authoring (revisited)

Hi Geoff,

It appears to me that your concern focuses on the way that ATAG v2.0 
Checkpoint 1.1 is applied to web-based authoring tools and, 
specifically, the role that the somewhat outdated requirements of WCAG 
v1.0 might play in determining when this checkpoint has been met.

This is a good point and one that we are trying to address. In the 
current draft, passing WCAG 1.0 is not a normative requirement. The only 
success criteria (normative requirement) for checkpoint 1.1 is that "the 
authoring tool interface must conform to [ISO16071]".

However, although the scope of the ISO document does theoretically cover 
Web-based interfaces (including authoring interfaces), efforts are 
ongoing in the WCAG-WG to update WCAG 2.0 to take better account of Web 
applications. If this work results in a document that is more 
appropriate than the ISO document (and freely available) we might add 
conformance to some level of WCAG v2.0 as a second success criteria 
specific to Web applications.

Of course, this depends on WCAG 2.0 taking into account the specific 
technical issues that you raise in your message.

Does this address your concern or are there additional areas of ATAG 
v2.0 that you think might need to be modified?

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896



Geoff Deering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Regrets for being off list for a bit over a month.  But I have still be
> thinking about matters I have raised before.  I did begin work on writing a
> long technical article covering items I have raised, but I don't think that
> is a good approach, unless those here want to engage in a technical
> discussion.
> 
> This is the crux of my point, that in spirit ATAG is heading in the right
> direction, but I feel it is seriously flawed by it's naivety at addressing
> technical issues and clarifications.  And I feel these issues of technical
> inadequacies are so serious as to have the effect to alienate and loss the
> developer community, specifically ones that are building web based authoring
> tools.
> 
> I will just briefly make these points, and if anyone wants to discuss them,
> then I am willing to expand on them and clarify these issues.
> 
> As I have said before, there is a problem with grouping all these guidelines
> together and applying them generically to all the Authoring Tool categories
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040224/#what-auth-tool).
> 
> First point, "Software Accessibility Guidelines" and WCAG share the same
> focus and aims, but they are aimed at technically different types of
> application that run under different programming environments and are
> therefore subject only to the rules governing those environments, one is
> aimed at software that operates on APIs, and the other is based on markup
> render via a user agent.  I believe ATAG has to be very clear which is which
> and technically correct, otherwise the effort put into these guidelines will
> be wasted on the developer community they are aimed at.  To see some of my
> initial points, please refer to;
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2003Dec/0002.html
> 
> I feel there is need clarify this document so that the right guidelines are
> applied to the correct type of authoring tool.
> 
> I am also afraid to say that I feel there is a need for a third type of
> category (1. Software Accessibility 2. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
> 3. Web Application Accessibility), the problem is that *every" "Web Based
> Application Tool/ CMS Interface" I have seen does not comply with WCAG1
> Priority 1.  All of them rely on scripts (Java, JavaScript), many rely on
> popups for certain functions of the user interface, etc.  I just cannot see
> any of them seeing the benefits of transferring all scripting to the server
> side and trying to become ATAG compliant.  They are all script dependant.
> 
> I did 2 days of Interwoven Teamsite training a few weeks back, and I just
> could not see any reason why they would try and comply to the letter of
> these guidelines.  What is the benefit to any of the CMS developers to
> follow ATAG, because it will surely kill their product in the general
> market, it will put them so far behind their competitors.
> 
> Can anyone else see these issues, or am I a lone voice on this list in this
> regard?
> 
> Geoff Deering
>

Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 10:53:57 UTC