comments on ATAG2.0 B.1 Techniques - my action item

Sorry the following is so "jumbled"..  won't have much more time to spend on it before the deadline..

Best, Tim Boland NIST

"immediately prior to" - difficult to determine - should be run often before that point!

"control every detail of" - should address accessibility specifically?

New technique - have authoring tool rate an authoring action by producing "accessibility
 index" message (similar to "risk index" found in some antivirus software?

New technique - have authoring tool remember history of authoring actions from author
 so that when authoring action is completed, dialog box/other prompt will say "you've
 done this before, and here's what happened.."

New technique - when transforming/converting in same technology, have "summary of
 current accessibility considerations" pop up before transformation/conversion, and
  "possible accessibility impact - do you still want to continue? Yes or no"  .. if
 yes "do you want to save summary of current accessibility considerations for use later"?

New technique - after transformation/conversion complete, keep copy of content before
 transformation along with accessibility considerations, and say "do you want to go
 back to earlier transformation/accessibility - earlier point in content" - and then
 click yes or no?

New technique - when authoring action attempted or content presented, tool will present
 "these are some techniques you might use now" and then list some WCAG techniques to use..?

New technique - when transforming/converting between different technologies, have tool
 prompt and say "here are some WCAG techniques to use in the new technology?  Do you
want to continue?  Yes or no"

New technique - when transforming/converting between different technologies, have tool
 prompt and say "these WCAG techniques in new technology may be equivalent to techniques
 used in old technology - do you want to continue - and say yes or no?

Current techniques presented are OK but very general and need to be more specific - refer
 to specific WCAG techniques or WCAG techniques grouped by technology?

Why is the distinction made between authors and end users in B.1.2.1?

What is definition of "similar data structure"?

What are "presentation conventions"?    Why is "presentation" converted into "markup"?
 I thought presentation was to be kept separate from markup?

What is definition of "end product"?

New technique - authoring tool prompts author as to "which version of content do you
 want to access" - and list all the versions from beginning to present?

New technique - when content proposed for deletion from current editing view, tool always
 saves content as backup to be retrieved later?

New technique - in automatic generation of content from authoring tool, documentation of
 how that content meets WCAG2 is provided also, or list of WCAG2 techniques used is
 provided also?

New technique - for content creation using a technology contained in WCAG2 techniques
 document, authoring tool first displays a list of those techniques to the author, and
 then the author can select which ones they want to use?

New technique - for any authoring action, authoring tool suggests general techniques
 from WCAG2 techniques document, and then asks author if author wants to use any of
 these in content creation?

NOTE: "accessibility information" should refer to the way in which a technology is used
to promote accessibility - in keeping with thought that technology itself is not
accessible or inaccessible, but that a technology may be used in an accessible or
 inaccessible manner

Need to specifically reference WCAG techniques document - perhaps under "related resources"

tools should encourage use of WCAG techniques where appropriate - tool should be
 knowledgable of WCAG
techniques - tool should be able to present selected WCAG techniques and issues
 with them when prompted - also issues with SCs?

need to distinguish transformation/conversion in one technology from those between
 technologies - in the latter
case, may not be able to preserve accessibility information by default

should say "authors with disabilities" - "support" is ambiguous - not testable?