Re: WCAG WG comments on ATAG working draft of 21 May 2009

Some initial thoughts on the WCAG-WG comments ((marked with JR):

Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
> * Comment 1:
> 
> See Guideline A.1.2.
> 
>    "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow … requirements
> [which] are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0 …
> success criteria. "
> 
> We believe that what it means for a non-web-based authoring tool to be
> functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0  is undefined. This is very
> important, but it is a large task and  may not be a WAI problem to
> solve.
> 
> Could/should desktop accessibility standards like ANSI/HFES 200 Part 2
> / ISO 9241-171 be used instead? e.g.
>    "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility
> standards for desktop software. The following are some example
> software accessibility standards: ISO, Section 508 1194.21."
> 
> We don't think that multiple levels are necessary. (A122, A123). These
> standards don't necessarily have comparable levels.

JR: We've already looked at the ISO reference - but it's not currently 
free so it couldn't be a normative reference. I do agree however that 
the "functionally equivalent" formulation is tricky. MAYBE we can say it 
is Level A to respect Non-Web Platform conventions with a formulation 
similar to UAAG 1.0's 7.3 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/guidelines.html#tech-os-conventions)



> * Comment 2 (editorial):
> The introduction says "This section is informative, except where
> noted." This seems confusing. It might be better to label the
> information and normative subsections as such.

JR: I would be ok with this. MAYBE at the top we say "This section 
includes both normative and informative sub-sections."



> * Comment 3:
> Several Success Criteria have clarifying examples “(e.g., …)” in their
> body. These should be avoided. They can be converted to notes or moved
> to the understanding document. (FWIW, WCAG does have some normative
> use of “e.g.”, mostly in definitions, but never in SC.)

JR: ATAG doesn't have an "Understanding" document. We've been trying to 
ensure that the e.g.'s are required but aid in reading.


> * Comment 4:
> Some guidelines end with “Applicability Notes”. The formating and
> location makes it less than obvious that these apply to all Success
> Criteria within a Guideline. Suggest moving these before Success
> Criteria (within a Guideline grouping), or repeating for each Success
> Criteria. The Success Criteria should stand on their own, and Success
> Criteria can be anticipated to be extracted from Guideline context, so
> this these Applicability Notes are problematic as used.

JR: We should examine each "Applicability Note" to make sure it is 
really necessary BUT in WCAG 2.0 the Success Criteria don't always stand 
alone - i.e., the extra normative requirements in the Conformance 
Requirements. As much as possible let's try to push these into the 
consolidated lists at the start of Part A and B.


> * Comment 5
> 
>  Guideline B.2.2. Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.
> 
> The last “Applicability Notes” for this Guideline includes a rather
> large exception for third-part content. We recommend handling this
> with a Statement of Partial Conformance (like WCAG).

JR: If we did that, the best a tool could do would be to partially 
conform since almost any tool can have its content changed after 
authoring (e.g., author swaps in a different image, breaking the alt 
text). BUT actually the concept is at least partially covered in 
Applicability Note 2 of Part B as a whole.


Cheers,
Jan



> Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
> 
> On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
> 

-- 
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 19:10:33 UTC