- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:17:57 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hi Tim, Sorry that was a stray "level"...benchmarked technology would just mean a technology that had a benchmark in the conformance claim. Cheers, Jan boland@nist.gov wrote: > Concerns about testability with some of these.. what is a "level benchmarked" > technology? > > Best, Tim > > Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>: > >> Some ideas for tomorrow.... >> >> =========================================== >> >> B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation of >> content that is accessible. >> >> Rationale: Make it easier for the author to create accessible content by >> choosing technologies which support that. >> >> Note: In light of the requirements of this guideline. Consider providing >> benchmark documents for technology(ies) that your authoring tool already >> uses by default or prominently offers as an option to authors. >> >> B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool automatically >> selects Web content technologies, then the selection is a level >> benchmarked technology. >> >> B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool provides >> authors with technology options, benchmarked technology options are >> listed with at least as much prominence as any other options. >> >> =========================================== >> >> for B.1.2...add "content feeds" as an example to "conversion" >> >> A process that takes as input, content in one Web content technology or >> non-Web content technology and produces as output, content in a >> different Web content technology (e.g., "Save as HTML" function, >> displaying a content feed). >> >> =========================================== >> In Conformance claim, make distinction between "Technologies Authored" >> and "Technologies Referenced". Only "authored" ones need benchmarks, but >> "referenced" ones should be listed for Part B. >> >> =========================================== >> Part B: >> >> Applicability section: >> - Authors may only reasonably be expected to make decisions about >> content that they have information about. Therefore, authoring decisions >> that would require specific knowledge about content that is unknown to >> author at the time of authoring (e.g., descriptions of media files to be >> submitted by authors, aggregated news feeds) are exempt from Part B. >> - Support for accessible authoring is only required for "Authored >> Technologies" and those accessibility practices that take place in an >> "Authored Technology", but are related to the "Referenced Technologies" >> (e.g., alt text for images) with the exception that support for creating >> "(Conforming) Alternate Versions" is not required. >> >> =========================================== >> >> B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. >> >> Rationale: Checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool >> helps make authors aware of accessibility problems during the authoring >> process, so they can be immediately addressed. >> >> Note: It is a good design decision for tools to remember author answers >> to questions manual or semi-automated checking queries. >> >> --Blue starts-- >> >> Conformance Note: While automated checking or more advanced >> implementations of semi-automated checking may improve the authoring >> experience, only manual checking is minimally required to meet the >> success criteria for this guideline. >> >> Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool >> controls the authoring process to an extent that it is not possible for >> authors to introduce accessibility problems. >> >> LEVEL A SC >> B.2.2.1 Check "A" Accessibility: An individual check is associated with >> each level "A" Web content accessibility benchmark. >> B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available to authors prior to >> publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool. >> B.2.2.3 Checking (Minimum): Checking is available for at least those >> potential accessibility problems that the authoring tool is capable of >> addressing (exempting the catch-all method of a "conforming alternate >> version"). >> B.2.2.4 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment >> to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly >> identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), >> instructions are provided to help authors to decide. >> >> LEVEL AA SC >> ADD >> B.2.2.3 Checking (Enhanced): Checking is available for all potential >> accessibility problems, including those where the only accessible >> authoring practice is a "conforming alternate version"). >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Jan >> >> > > > -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information (i-school) 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 July 2008 14:16:31 UTC