- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:51:01 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all, Earlier I had proposed combining B.2.2.6 and B.2.2.7. Here's a bit more thinking on each of them and my new proposal: B.2.2.6 View Status: If the authoring tool records web content accessibility problems found during checking, then a list of any problems is available to authors prior to the end of the authoring session. (Level AA) -the current wording requires an amalgamated list of problems when this is not the only possible workflow (e.g. a check-as-you-type UI) - instead I suggest we be more flexible and allow some other measure of status to be reported - PROPOSAL: <NEW> B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA) Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG conformance level, etc. </NEW> B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking, then authors have the option to save a list of web content accessibility problems to facilitate later repair. (Level AAA) - IMO this is a strange level-AAA SC because a tool that didn't offer repair assistance would have already have failed B.2.3.1 Repair Accessibility (Level A). PROPOSAL: Remove the checkpoint. Cheers, Jan -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060 Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 16:51:34 UTC