Re: Response to BFs suggestions re: AUWG Poll #1: 10 September 2007

I accept the results that have been accepted without change..

Best, Tim Boland NIST

At 04:29 PM 9/17/2007 -0400, you wrote:

>This email attempts to address Barry's suggestions in 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0048.html, but 
>IMPORTANTLY I still need another response to Poll #1 before I can process 
>the results that both Barry and Roberto have accepted without change.
>
>Here's Poll #1 again:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0047.html
>
>I've just kept the issues that Barry made suggestions for:
>
>>-----
>>Proposal 3: The "modified" text in "Relationship to the Web Content
>>Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)"
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#Relationship-To-WCAG
>>Response: Accept the proposal (although it does not deal well with the 
>>situation that someone chooses something other than a WCAG as the 
>>guidelines for accessibility)
>
>Good point Barry...I propose the following text instead (and withdraw this 
>question from poll #1):
>
>ATAG 2.0 relies upon *Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark"* documents to 
>precisely specify what an evaluator interprets "accessible Web content" to 
>mean in the context of an authoring tool and the Web content technologies 
>that it produce and/or is implemented using. The recommended reference for 
>the benchmark is the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (See 
>*Note on other Accessibility Standards* 
>[http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#other-standards])
>due to the quality of the document and the process under which it was 
>developed.
>
>The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is the W3C-WAI 
>Recommendation that defines requirements for making Web content accessible 
>to a wide range of people with disabilities. At the time of publication, 
>version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation *[WCAG10]*, and a second 
>version of the guidelines is under development *[WCAG20]*. The evaluator 
>of an authoring tool may select (and record in the conformance profile) 
>either version of WCAG. However, developers should give consideration to 
>the following when deciding which WCAG version to use in a product:
>
>[3 bullet points unchanged]
>
>
>
>>-----
>>Proposal 5: Definition of "authoring session "
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#definitions
>>Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)
>>suggest "no further opportunity to make changes." --> "no further 
>>opportunity to make changes without starting another session."
>
>
>Good change. I'll make the change and withdraw this item from Poll #1.
>
>
>
>>-----
>>Proposal 6: Modified definition of "authoring tool", "view" (which would
>>then contain "editing view" and "preview"), and "authoring tool user
>>interface"
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0040.html
>>PLUS see below for modification to "authoring tool"
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0043.html
>>Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)
>>WRT the PLUS section.
>>ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or *collection of
>>software components*, that *authors* use to create or modify *Web
>>content* for USE BY OTHER PEOPLE.
>>(I'm aware and ok with the fact that this covers email systems that send
>>"Web content")
>>On the (...) comment, to me, an email (or similar, say wiki) system 
>>should not be required to (but it is allowed to) be responsible for 
>>assisting the author in prompting, evaluating or fixing email content 
>>that was included from other sources (including forwarded email or 
>>attachments). At most it should only be held accountable for the actual 
>>content added by the author issuing the "send" request.
>>Although the AUWG clearly would include an email system as an authoring 
>>tool (especially one like gmail), I'm not sure all email system vendors 
>>would agree. For example, is an email system that sends over the internet 
>>but uses private formats (vs say HTML) to encode the mail so that only 
>>the same type of system can receive the mail and render it considered to 
>>be an authoring tool (Lotus Notes can work in this mode)?
>
>The thing about email systems is that simply by entering the email address 
>of a Web-archived listserv they become authors of Web content that might 
>be viewed by a very large number of people. Even pressing "Replying All" 
>can send to content to a large number of people.
>
>So it seems to me that the the basic issue is that if a software lets you 
>determine important details of other people's interactive experiences, 
>then they are authoring tools. (On the other hand, if a tool lets me 
>modify my own view of the Web - e.g. a personalized portal - it does lots 
>of "authoring-like" things, but would not be an authoring tool by my 
>proposed definition).
>
>That said, ATAG 2.0 compliance doesn't mean an in-the-author's-face 
>experience, it just means the supports need to be in place if the author 
>wants to use them.
>
>Regarding private formats: If the format is fairly basic (e.g. rich text 
>and images) that will make conformance relatively easy. Conversely, if 
>they throw in all sorts of ability to introduce accessibility problems, 
>greater effort to meet ATAG 2.0 seems a natural result.
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 20:37:29 UTC