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

Hi Michael,

At the meeting on Monday, Ann, Andrew and myself agreed with your wording.

How do others feel? If we get enough ok's on the list, I can drop it 
into a new Editor's draft.

Cheers,
Jan




Michael A Squillace wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 19:03:54 UTC