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

Re: 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: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:10:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4A2D461F.9040807@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Following the conversation we had on the June 1 call, I've spent a lot 
of time thinking about B.1.1....and I'd like to reword the proposal 
somewhat (including bringing in more of the Definition of "Accessibility 
Supported" from WCAG2):

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

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

Rationale: The production of *accessible Web content* is only possible 
if *authoring tools* make use of *Web content technologies* that can be 
used in ways that are *accessibility supported*.

B.1.1.1 Automatic Technology Selection: If *Web content technologies* 
are automatically selected by the *authoring tool* (e.g., for *automatic 
content generation*, as the default technology for *author-generated 
content*), then the *Web content technologies* can be used in ways that 
are *accessibility supported*. (Level A)

B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies: If *authors* are provided with a 
choice of *Web content technology* options, any *Web content technology* 
options that can be used in ways that are *accessibility supported* are 
*at least as prominent* as any options that cannot. (Level A)

B.1.1.3 Technology Warning: If the *authoring tool* can *recognize* that 
*authors* have chosen to use a *Web content technology* that may not be 
able to be be used in ways that are *accessibility supported*, then the 
*authoring tool* notifies the *authors* that this may result in *Web content
accessibility problems* in the output. (Level AA)


NEW DEF'N IN THE GLOSSARY:

accessibility supported [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Supported by *end users'* *assistive technologies* as well as the 
accessibility features in browsers and other *user agents*. To qualify 
as an accessibility-supported use of a *Web content technology* (or 
feature of a technology), both 1 and 2 must be satisfied for the *Web 
content technology* (or feature):

1. The way that the *Web content technology* is used must be supported 
by *end users'* *assistive technology* (AT). This means that the way 
that the *Web content technology* is used has been tested for 
interoperability with *end users'* *assistive technology* in the *human 
language(s)* of the *Web content*,

AND

2. The *Web content technology* must have accessibility supported *user 
agents* that are available to *end users*. This means that at least one 
of the following four statements is true:

a. The *Web content technology* is supported natively in 
widely-distributed *user agents* that are also accessibility supported 
(such as HTML and CSS);

OR

b. The *Web content technology* is supported in a widely-distributed 
plug-in that is also accessibility supported;

OR

c. The *Web content* is available in a closed environment, such as a 
university or corporate network, where the *user agent* required by the 
*Web content technology* and used by the organization is also 
accessibility supported;

OR

d. The *user agent(s)* that support the *Web content technology* are 
accessibility supported and are available for download or purchase in a 
way that:

  - does not cost a person with a disability any more than a person 
without a disability and

  - is as easy to find and obtain for a person with a disability as it 
is for a person without disabilities.

Notes:
- The AUWG,  WCAG Working group and the W3C do not specify which or how 
much support by assistive technologies there must be for a particular 
use of a *Web content technology* in order for it to be classified as 
accessibility supported. (See “Understanding Accessibility Support” in 
“Understanding WCAG 2.0” for more details).
- See also the *conformance profile* requirements for documenting 
“accessibility supported”.



In the "CONFORMANCE PROFILE":

5(b) A list of the *Web content technologies* (including version 
numbers) produced by the *authoring tool*  that the Claimant is 
*including* in the conformance claim.
- The list must include any *Web content technologies* identified in 
Guideline B.1 as being able to be used in ways that are *accessibility 
supported*.
- For each *Web content technology*, specify the conditions under which 
the *Web content technology* can be used in ways that are 
*accessibility supported* (e.g., specify known *assistive technology* 
support, *user agent* support, plug-in support, in what *human 
languages*, in what closed environments, etc.). NOTE: It is the 
responsibility of *authors* to decide whether these conditions for 
*accessibility supported* are actually applicable in the context of the 
*authors'* own circumstances (e.g., the *human language* of their *Web 
content*, whether they develop in open vs. closed environment, etc.)

5(c [was d]) A list of the *Web content technologies* produced by the 
the *authoring tool* that the Claimant is *excluding* from the 
conformance claim. *Web content Technologies* may only be excluded that 
are not automatically selected by the *authoring tool* (See Success 
Criterion B.1.1).





Cheers,
Jan


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

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 17:11:22 UTC

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