- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:10:10 -0500
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hi Tim, I'm hoping to respond to some of your questions... Tim Boland wrote: > Per my action item from the 10 Nov 2008 AUWG teleconference, I > investigated the definition of "authoring tool" and the "conformance > section", both from [1]. > As background and a reference point against which to evaluation the ATAG2.0 > specification, I used the material in the W3C Quality Assurance > Specification > Guidelines "Specifying Conformance" section [2]. > > Comments/questions on Conformance section from [1]: > > I think conformance section should make it clear that authoring tools > are the > "class of products" that need to conform - authoring tools are what > needs to > conform, not authors or other entities. Furthermore, the conformance > section > should state how authoring tools need to conform (either included directly > or by reference). Everything related to conformance - what is to conform > and > how? - should be included in the conformance section. The conformance > section should state how an authoring tool should satisfy the success > criteria in the guidelines section (for example, which levels, how > many at each level, etc.) and be very specific (maybe link to the > "levels of conformance" and following "WCAG" sections presented > earlier in the document from the conformance section?). Everything > related to conformance > should be in one place if possible.. I'm hoping my proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008OctDec/0067.html) makes these things more clear. > Is our definition of "collection of software components" consistent > with our definition of authoring tool (multiple applications?? > distinguish between application and component?)? That should be changed to "collection of software applications" > Does a claim allow for satisfaction of some (but not all) level As, > some (but not all) level AAs, and/or some (but not all) level AAAs? > Is this a realistic scenario? Discussed on call. > For platforms, we're not testing the platforms, right? Just the > authoring tools? Right. > Also, do we have a definition for Web-based user > interface functionality? Yes. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081202/#def-Web-Based-UI > Comments/questions on definition of authoring tool from [1]: > > For definition of authoring tool, "why do we have "used by other > people" at end? To differentiate the authoring tools from other software that let me change my own experience. ex. When I set my magnification in IE I'm not authoring (even if the mechanism for doing it is to apply a stylesheet)...but if iI change the stylesheet of someone else I'm using an authoring tool. > Is this necessary, or even testable (testing intent?), since I assume > that this definition is normative. I think so...it's not testing intent, it's testing potential use. > In the definition of authoring tools, "web content" should be linked to the > definition.. Agreed >Do we need a definition of "application", or is it obvious? I think it's fairly obvious. > For note 1, guidelines should not place any requirements on the > ability of authors? - authoring tools are what's being tested, not > authors? It means ATAG 2.0 isn't going to fail a tool for now allowing an author to correct content they aren't allowed to change. > For note 2, do we have a definition of "live content authoring tool"? > If so, should we link to it? If not, should we create one? Is a live > content authoring tool a corrent subcategory of our authoring tool > definition? I'd be OK with that. Cheers, Jan > > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > [1]: _http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081028/_ > [2]: _http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#specifying-conformance > > _ -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Lead 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 Thursday, 4 December 2008 22:10:55 UTC