Re: The Problem of Web Based Authoring (revisited)

Geoff,

Would you be able to join our next teleconference to discuss these 
issues? The teleconference is at 4 ET on March 15th. As you correctly 
point out, the accommodation of accessible Web services requires 
considerations in both WCAG and ATAG. Perhaps following a discussion 
in ATAG we can coordinate with WCAG.

Regards,
Jutta

At 2:42 PM +1100 3/8/04, 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 13:19:51 UTC