- From: Barry Feigenbaum <feigenba@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:02:10 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFA7259E0B.DF7DA9C7-ON86257280.00714F21-86257281.006E1099@us.ibm.com>
More input from IBM accessibility folks: >From Shannon Rapuano Review of Part A which focuses on accessibility of the tool: A.1.2. Why isnt' synchronized alternative for MM considered P1 consistent with WCAG? A.2.1. Keyboard access. I do not agree with the success criteria that requires single key or key + modifier access to the listed functions. This is not P1. Access to the function with the keyboard is P1. Specifying single key or key+ modifier is at most P2 since this is usable access and not accessibility. A.2.8. Having multiple sets of preferences and settings should be P3 and not P2. Review of Part B which focuses on output of authoring tool: B.2.4. I am concerned about the testability of this checkpoint. I think providing text equivalents for non-text content is Priority 1, but assisting the authors to ensure the alternative is "accurate and fits the content" is Priority 2 at best. It is not a Priority 1 requirement. B.2.6. Is there a reason why the group made providing a summary of accessibility status a P3? I would view this as P2 given the other requirements. B.2.7. There should be a definition of "tutorial" for "Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible authoring." The success criteria is clear that the tutorial is specific to the tool, but the language of the checkpoint leaves it open to interpretation. Also, how is B.2.7 different than B.3.5. to document accessibility features of the tool? What specifically is different about a "tutorial"? B.3.1 and B.3.3. I am concerned about the testability of "prominence" to meet these checkpoints. I suppose it is vague enough that we could justify meeting the criteria in our tools. >From Cori Ryan So my feedback is that the Definition of Authoring Tool should extend to include a bullet on that describe tools like Rational manual tester that generate web content as an Export feature. This is a case that can be easily overlooked. I can exemplify with a basic example of images: have the ability to provide alt text to images they paste in the script in the RTE and that alt text must carry though on export. This is likely the same text that should be supplied for the MSAA Name value. >From Rich Schwerdtfeger Comments on Section 2.2 Conformance claims. I think the concept of Baselines should be introduced here as it is appropriate. Is WCAG Benchmark a new name for Baseline? Also, the document seems to have blurred Part A and Part B here when the intent was to be separated. A.0.1 There needs to be a discussion of the Benchmark or Baseline. A.1 Text Alternatives should include short and long desriptions(help text) for non-text object. ODF and HTML both provide for these. Also ARIA has an aaa:describedby property toreference the long description. A.1.3 ... If the visual display (e.g., fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning) is controlled by the authoring tool rather than by the platform, then the authoring tool must provide at least the same configurable properties with at least the same configuration ranges as the platform. Someone should make a request that UAAG follow a similar requirement. This is not specific to an authoring tool. A.2.1 Requiring single-key modifiers should be a P2. Also, drag and drop and in-context menus should fall under this section. A.2.1 Should be synched with UAAG. A.2.8 Should be P3 A.4.1 Has the group thought about keyboard conflicts with assistive technologies? ATs can change their UI regularly so conflicts can arise and it would be difficult to mandate that no kbd. conflicts should occur. However, they are source of contention. B.1.1 Back to benchmarks and baselines. The baseline should be explicit stated. B.1.2 the accessibility information is available to end users in the result of the transformation or conversion, or ... I would use the words "preserved for" vs. "available to" and I would add that this should only be done if the target content-type supports the accessibility information. For example, ODF supports headers in rich text editor tables whereas MS Office does not. Also long description and short text alternatives are provided in ODF whereas MS Office only provides one text alternative. B.1 3 Will the techniques show how this is done through the accessibility api? B.2.1 I am a bit confused about relative priority. While I understand that this is relative to WCAG priority levels, ... Is the ATAG priority for a P1 to prompt for accessibility information defined in a P1 check point in WCAG? When there is dynamic content and states and properties are changed in ARIA, you should define techniques that show how the browser will display accessibility api state or property change event notifications B.2.2 Success Criteria 2 should not be limited to the element type. The author may place an ARIA role on the element which redefines what states and properties it should support. ATAG should allow for a comparison of the states/properties set with the states and properties allowed for that role type. For example, IBM has a tool called RAVEn which will compare this information against the states and properties defined for a role in the Role taxonomy. B.2.6 I agree this should be a P3. It will be difficult to do this for dynamic content unless it were a snapshot in time. B.3 This section should provide information to the author in the case of a model-based authoring tool about whether reusable objects have previously been tested for accessibility with assistive technologies. This would help promote accessibility solution construction and perhaps reduce the load on the developer. Barry A. Feigenbaum, Ph. D. Tool Architect Human Ability and Accessibility Center - IBM Research www.ibm.com/able, w3.ibm.com/able voice 512-838-4763/tl678-4763 fax 512-838-9367/0330 cell 512-799-9182 feigenba@us.ibm.com Mailstop 904/5F-021 11400 Burnet Rd., Austin TX 78758 Accessibility ARB Representative on SWG ARB W3C AUWG Representative Austin IBM Club BoD Interface Technologies IDT Member QSE Development TopGun Sun Certified Java Programmer, Developer & Architect IBM Certified XML Developer; OOAD w/UML This message sent with 100% recycled electrons
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:02:38 UTC