W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

Thinking about ATAG 2.0 Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:55:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4A131CDF.2070905@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
During yesterday's call there was some unease about the use of the "User 
Supported" concept in B.1.1 (myself included)....

This was because WCAG 2.0's "User Supported" concept requires some human 
decision making. A good division of responsibility would seem to be 
requiring that authoring tools the conditions under which the 
technologies it uses would be "WCAG 2.0 'user supported' and then give 
the author the responsibility for deciding whether those conditions are 
met by their own particular end-users.

Also we currently require only that accessible technology options be 
prominent but we don't require warnings if they aren't selected...I 
think that might be useful so I've proposed a requirement.


==================================================================
Proposed re-wording
==================================================================

Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the 
creation of content that is accessible. [Techniques]


Rationale: An *authoring tool* can only produce *accessible Web content* 
if it employs *accessible Web content technologies*.


B.1.1.1 Default to Accessible Technologies: The authoring tool defaults 
to *accessible technologies* for *automatically-generated content* and 
when the *authoring tool* sets the *Web content technology* for 
*author-generated content*. (Level A)

B.1.1.2 Guide Authors to Accessible Technologies: If the *authoring 
tool* provides *authors* with more than one *Web content technology* 
options for a task, then any *accessible technologies* are *at least as 
prominent* as any other technology options. (Level A)

B.1.1.3 Warn Authors of Inaccessible Technologies: If the *authoring 
tool* can *recognize* that *authors* have chosen to use a *Web content 
technology* that is not an *accessible technology*, then the *authoring 
tool* notifies *authors* that this may result in *Web content 
accessibility problems* in the output.  (Level ?)


GLOSSARY: ...An *accessible technology* is a technology that may be used 
in a way that is "accessibility supported" as defined by WCAG 2.0 (For 
more information on "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0). Any 
technology covered by an ATAG 2.0 *conformance claim* must be an 
accessible technology.


In the "Conformance Profile":

5(b) A list of (at least one) *Web content technology(ies)* produced by 
the *authoring tool* that is to be included in the conformance claim. 
Each listed *technology* must include a description of how the 
*technology* can be used in a way that is "accessibility supported" as 
defined by WCAG 2.0 (For more information on "accessibility supported", 
see WCAG 2.0). NOTE: It is the responsibility of *authors* to decide 
whether the descriptions of "accessibility supported" are reasonable in 
the context of the *authors'* own specific *end users*.

5(c [was d]) A list of any other *Web content technology(ies)* produced 
by the *authoring tool* that are to be excluded from the conformance claim.


Cheers,
Jan
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:56:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC