ATAG 2.0 Developer Template (Form) 12-1 - for ATAG2.0 Success Criterion 1.2 Level A

DISCLAIMER: Data entered on this form is informative only. The submitter bears all responsibility for the accuracy of the data. The data entered on this form may be reviewed by the W3C AUWG?

Note: If you've already entered information following on a previous form, no need to reenter it - just skip past. Answers to all questions are required; if you feel a question is not applicable, just write "not applicable" and say why. If you need additional ATAG2.0 information (including access to the ATAG2.0 spec and techniques) to complete this form, you may go to the ATAG site. Please submit this form to the "testreport" site. For more info on ISO16071, go to ?. For more information on other WAI testing activities go to ? This information will be made public. This information will be made accessible. After you submit this form, you may proceed immediately to the nextSuccess Criterion 1.3 Developer form (doesn't work yet) if you wish, or go back to the Success Criterion 1.1 Developer form or go back to the ATAG2.0 Test Suite Page. Thank you.

This form is divided into several parts as follows: (a) Part 1 - General Information (general-regardless of success criterion), (b) Part 2 - Success Criterion 1.2 Background Information (non-testing-specific to success criterion), (c)Part 3 - Specific Success Criterion 1.2 Testing Questions (testing-specific to success criterion), and (d) Part 4 - Summary Information for Success Criterion 1.2.

Part 1 - General Information

1. Name of Developer:

2. Contact Info of Developer(s):

3. Address of Developer(s):

4. Email of Developer(s):

5. Phone Number(s) of Developer(s):

6. Fax# of Developer(s):

7. Name of Authoring Tool:

8. Description of Authoring Tool (please be specific):

9. Where can author find documentation of authoring tool (please be specific)?

10. Category of Authoring Tool (please be specific):

11. Platform(s) of Authoring Tool (please be specific):

12. What is format output by Authoring Tool (please be specific)?

13. Would results of tests of authoring tool be machine-reportable, human-reportable, or both? (please be specific - if machine-reportable, how would output be produced/accessed)?

Part 2 - Success Criterion 1.2 Background Information

14. How could an author use your authoring tool interface for testing Success Criterion 1.2 (please be specific)?

15. In case an author had questions on the use of your authoring tool interface for testing Success Criterion 1.2, where could they go for answers (please be specific)?

16. Where can author find accessibility-related features of authoring tool interface for Success Criterion 1.2 (please be specific)?

Part 3 - Specific Success Criterion 1.2 Testing Questions

TEST PURPOSE: To evaluate editing methods according to ISO 16071

TEST REQUIREMENTS: ATAG2.0 Success Criterion 1.2 - At least one editing method must conform to ISO16071 for each element and object property that is editable by the tool

specific test questions to be added here..

Part 4 - Summary Information for Success Criterion 1.2

41. Why do you feel your authoring tool interface satisfies ATAG2.0 Success Criterion 1.2 for Level A (please be specific)?

42. Date of this report

Thank you very much. Your answers will be saved.