- From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:28:47 -0400
- To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all, >From the June 6 Meeting: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/06-au-minutes.html ----------------------- (1) To reword using programmatically associated or similar term (AL may suggest term) [related to: B.2.2 - MS49] PROPOSAL: Switch the term "metadata" for "programmatically associated". I think this is justified because a full EARL report may not be considered metadata by some people. The examples stay the same. B.3.1.5 Programmatic association of results: Authors have the option of having checking results programmatically associated with the web content that was checked. (Level AA) Intent of Success Criterion B.3.1.5: The intent of this success criterion is to facilitate automated use of accessibility checking results, which can benefit both authors and end-users. This can benefit authors and end-users in at least two ways: (a) increasing the interoperability of separated checking and repair tools and (b) supporting accessible resource discovery. Increasing the interoperability of separated checking and repair tools allows authors to choose different checking and repair tools to suit their needs and also allows separation of checking and repair within the same authoring tool. For instance, a CMS with a continuously running web site accessibility checker might automatically queue up issues to be repaired later from within a quality assurance view. Systems that support accessible resource discovery take the accessibility preferences of end-users into account when fetching content. This allows authors to offer multiple versions of content with differing accessibility levels while still enabling end-users to receive versions that are accessible to them. The success criterion does not specify the format of the programmatic association, which may be specific (e.g. individual check results) or more general (e.g., WCAG 2.0 conformance level). However, formats that include specific checking results are typically more useful for accessible resource discovery because individual end-users may have preferences for certain types of accessibility information (e.g. captions), but not for others (e.g. audio descriptions). -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/ Faculty of Design | OCAD University
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 17:29:03 UTC