Proposed ATAG2 "Decision Support" success criterion

Hi all,

Jutta and I worked out the following wording for the decision support 
success criterion:

B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a 
choice between web content technology options, then the following 
information is provided for each option: (Level A)

(a) general information about the accessibility of the technology to end 
users; and

(b) for technologies included in a conformance claim, information on the 
accessible content support features provided for that technology by the 
authoring tool;

(c) for technologies excluded from a conformance claim, both a warning 
that choosing that technology may result in web content accessibility 
problems and information on alternative included technologies (if 
available).



=> Here is new proposed text for Understanding ATAG 2.0 (I'm proposing 
this - I haven't run it past Jutta):

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:
The intent of this success criterion is to help authors make decisions 
about which web content technologies to use that are informed by 
accessibility considerations. If accessibility is part of 
decision-making at this early point, it will reduce the likelihood that 
retrofits for accessibility will be required later on. The wording "the 
authoring tool provides authors with a choice" is intended to rule out 
situations in which authors make technology choices without guidance by 
the authoring tool (e.g., by hand coding, by specifying a DTD). In (a), 
the wording "general information about the accessibility of the 
technology to end users" is intended to encompass possibilities such as: 
authoring techniques for that technology, accessibility features or 
limitations of the technology, the availability of user agents for that 
technology, etc. In (c), the wording "alternative included technologies 
(if available)" is intended to refer to the other choices that the 
authoring tool is making available. If no included technology options 
are being offered by the authoring tool or the included options are not 
appropriate alternatives to the technology in question, then information 
on alternatives would not be needed.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1: Choosing video formats:
A video authoring tool can be used to author three video formats: (1) an 
old video format that does not include text tracks, (2) a newer video 
format that has one text track and widespread support in players and (3) 
a very new multi-text track video format that currently has limited 
support in players. The authoring tool includes a built-in closed 
captioning utility for the newer format whereas captions can only be 
added to the older video format using a third party tool that adds them 
as open captioning. When author saves a new video file, the "Save As" 
dialog provides the three video formats are provided as choices. When 
focus moves to a format in the dialog an information area in the dialog 
briefly notes accessibility information (and other information, such as 
compression effectiveness) with links to more information in the 
documentation. For (1), it is noted that the built-in closed captioning 
utility will not be available and that captions are required for WCAG 
conformance. The (linked) further information notes that only open 
captioning is possible in this format and only using a third party tool. 
For (3), it is noted that player support is limited, which may limit 
access by some end users. The (linked) further information includes 
links to an "Accessibility Information" page maintained by the company 
that developed the new video format.

Choosing between calendar widgets:
An author, using a content management system, adds a date field. The 
system prompts the user to choose a calendar widget that will appear to 
the end-user when they use the date field. All of the choices that 
conform to WCAG 2.0 are labeled as accessible with links to more 
accessibility information provided by the makers of the widgets. Choices 
that do not conform include warnings to the author.


Cheers,
Jan

Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 20:32:10 UTC