RE: Action item re: the ATAG 2.0 metadata production requirement

Hi Alex,

I agree that the user "option" part should not be strictly required....and I also note we should be clear that we are referring to accessibility checking....so maybe:

B.3.1.5 Programmatic association of results: Authoring tools can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. (Level AA)


What do you think?

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
(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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Li [mailto:alli@microsoft.com]
> Sent: June 8, 2011 5:02 PM
> To: Richards, Jan; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Action item re: the ATAG 2.0 metadata production
> requirement
> 
> Propose reword to: check results is or can be programmatically
> associated with the web content that was checked. (Level AA)
> 
> The current wording requires an "option" given to the author. The tool
> should still meet the SC if there is no option but to have the result
> programmatically associated with the content.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Richards, Jan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:29 AM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Action item re: the ATAG 2.0 metadata production requirement
> 
> 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 Thursday, 9 June 2011 20:40:05 UTC