- From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:28:36 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-ID: <19E94C8E8A6A9B4F9202F6E89C50AFF8287512@s2009exm02.macromedia.com>
I want to raise a serious concern I have with the current state of the draft of ATAG. The current draft requires a number of elements that are not currently available in mainstream authoring tools. Specifically, these include: (3.3) Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. (3.2) Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. (3.5) Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents. To my knowledge, there are no authoring tools on the market that current perform these tasks. As a result, ATAG requires one of two things. Either (a) customers need to buy or install additional tools or (b) Macromedia would need to acquire these technologies. Neither is a positive outcome for accessibility. The former represents the status quo in many respects. There are a number of specialty products available today to validate and repair for accessibility. These are tools like LIFT, AccRepair, A-Prompt etc. Today, many of us encourage authors to make use of a collection of tools to ensure that accessibility of their content and applications. This is in many ways a productive division of labor. These companies devote a tremendous amount of effort to looking at accessibility evaluation and repair issues. As small, focused companies and funded academic efforts, these groups are able to devote a level of attention that is very hard to get within the medium to very large companies that build the actual authoring tools. I liken this division of labor to the one between makers of user agents and assistive technologies. My first concern is that the current draft does not allow any one tool available to meet the requirements of ATAG. From a vendor perspective, this will come back from customers as, "Dreamweaver is not ATAG compliant." ATAG is not written as a procurement standard. It is written as a development standard for authoring tool makers. Customers will have a hard time understanding that they need get an additional tool to meet atag. They will have a harder time accepting that they will likely have to pay for those tools. The bottom line in this case is that an ATAG compliant tool will likely never exist. The latter case where these smaller companies are acquired or put out of business is the more drastic scenario. I see this as a possible outcome if customers continue to fail to understand the need to assemble collections of products to meet national or local government requirements. I see this as a uniquely negative outcome. First, the cost of developing this repair tool or acquiring a company that makes one would easily exceed the budget and resources we allocate to accessibility on an annual basis - for all products - by at least an order of magnitude. This means I would not be able to do any AT interoperability work, no authoring support for new technologies, and no support for new OS level APIs (there are at least three major new APIs due out soon). Rather than leveraging the existing market, we will force companies like mine to stop moving forward while we absorb this cost. If we assume that we were indeed to build these features ourselves or acquire them, that does not mean we will have the resources to devote to maintaining these features over time. Unlike the companies in the ER market today, we do not have the resources to assign five to ten people to stay abreast of repair tools AND with at least one less company making such tools, we actually find ourselves squandering the expertise that exists today. I see the repair requirements as an over-extension of the guidelines themselves. At best, ATAG would have a drastic and negative impact on the marketplace. At worst, ATAG would be ignored and thus be irrelevant. I strongly believe that ATAG should push industry and move us all in a direction toward creating accessible content. However, I also believe there are limits that have been crossed here. Cheers, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------- bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 03:05:50 UTC