Action: Re: Rethinking A1.2 and A2.3 - was Re: Looking at A.2.3

All:

Here is my proposed rewording:

Guideline A.1.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Support
interoperability with assistive technologies.

Rationale: Assistive technologies that are used by many people with
disabilities (e.g., screen readers, screen magnifiers, on-screen keyboards,
voice recognition systems) rely on the authoring tool to provide data and
control via prescribed communication protocols.  These protocols are
typically implemented via an accessibility architecture, which provides a
means by which content authors and aplication developers can export
additional semantic information to assistive technologies in order to
effect alternative presentations.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.2
A.1.2.1 Accessibility Platform Architecture (user interface "chrome",
content display): Non-Web-based authoring user interfaces (and their
components) implement an accessibility platform architecture relevant to
the platform or leverage existing implementations of the architecture.
[Developers of authoring tools are encouraged to choose platforms that
offer a robust and proven accessibility architecture.]
A.1.2.2 Accessible Alternative (user interface "chrome", content display):
If any non-Web-based authoring user interface functionality is not
supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s), then a
separate accessible alternative for that functionality that is supported by
the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s) is provided and a
description of the inaccessible functionality appears in the conformance
claim.

AA and AAA success criteria remain unchanged, with the possible exception
of adding the bracketed text above in A1.2.1 as an additional AAA
criterion, A1.2.5. I would prefer to leave it in A1.2.1 as is.

Guideline A.2.3 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that the
interface is enabled for alternative presentations.

Rationale: Authors need to have access to and control over both the
functional significance of presentation and also, in the context of
authoring, the presentation that will be experienced by the end user.  This
is especially important for user interface components that do not implement
an accessibility platform architecture or leverage existing implementations
(e.g. custom user interface components built via JavaScript and CSS).

Success criteria remain unchanged.

--> Mike Squillace
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
Austin, TX

W:512.823.7423
M:512.970.0066

masquill@us.ibm.com
www.ibm.com/able

Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 18:19:07 UTC