- From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:28:43 -0500
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all, See below for proposed wording to meet the action I took yesterday: ACTION: JR to Replace value judgement term with negative connotation term and flesh out a,b,c,d a bit more Examples of Success Criterion B.1.1.2: -------------------------------------- @Automatic accessibility checking: An authoring tool allows images, videos and other multimedia files to be dragged into documents. When this happens, markup is automatically generated that contains accessibility problems. However, the authoring tool includes an "as-you-type" accessibility checker that unobtrusively highlights the problems for author attention, meeting (c). @Manual accessibility checking: An authoring tool allows images, videos and other multimedia files to be dragged into documents. When this happens, markup is automatically generated that contains accessibility problems. Since the authoring tool includes a manual checking wizard instead of an automatic checker, a message appears in a status area of the user interface stating that the author should use the wizard before publishing, meeting (d). Intent of Success Criterion B.1.2.1: ------------------------------------ @The intent of this success criterion is to encourage authoring tools to preserve accessibility information during restructuring or recoding transformations and to ensure authors are made aware when the authoring tool is unable to preserve accessibility information. This may occur when the output format does not support the same accessibility features as the input format (i.e. the example of a vector graphic being saved as a raster image format) or when an authoring tool has not implemented the necessary data mapping as may happen. There is no negative connotation intended here. In some cases, the number of source technology possibilities is simply too large to ensure complete mappings are in place for all of them. The options available partially mirror the options for Success Criterion B.1.1.2, reflecting the similarities between automatic generation and restructuring/re-coding web content transformations: Option (a) is the most straightforward. It requires the authoring tool to preserve accessibility information during transformations. Option (b) is to warn the author directly that accessibility information may be lost, allowing them to decide whether or not to proceed. Option (c) takes into account that prompting during the transformation process may be contrary to the workflow. Instead, the authoring tool can run a checker on the output. Option (d) is similar to (c) but takes into account that ATAG 2.0 allows the option of manual checking. See Also: ATAG 2.0 identifies other types of transformations in which the expectation for preserving accessibility information is higher. These are optimizing transformations (Success Criterion B.1.2.2) and transformations in which non-text content is preserved (Success Criterion B.1.2.3). Examples of Success Criterion B.1.2.1: -------------------------------------- @Warning when text is converted to graphics): A "Save As" feature includes the ability to convert textual formats into graphics. However, if this option is selected by authors, they are warned that the output will have web content accessibility problems. They are also advised that style sheets are preferable for presentation control. If authors continue, there is a suggestion to retain the original text as alternative content for the graphical output. @Option to cancel: A markup editor has a feature that that automatically removes any attributes or elements that do not appear in the defined DTD when content is opened for editing. Upon activation, the feature notifies authors that content will be deleted with unknown effects for end users. The author has the option to cancel the operation, in which case the content will not be opened for editing, meeting (b). @Automatic accessibility checking: An authoring tool allows content to be copy-and-pasted from other applications, including office applications, user agent, etc. When this happens, the source content is recoded into the technology of the current document. While accessibility was considered in the design of the feature, web content accessibility problems may still occur. However, the authoring tool includes an "as-you-type" accessibility checker, meeting (c). @Manual accessibility checking: An authoring tool allows content to be copy-and-pasted from other applications, including office applications, user agent, etc. When this happens, the source content is recoded into the technology of the current document. While accessibility was considered in the design of the feature, web content accessibility problems may still occur. Since the authoring tool includes a manual checking wizard instead of an automatic checker, a message appears in a status area of the user interface stating that the author should use the wizard before publishing, meeting (d). -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/ Faculty of Design | OCAD University
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:29:23 UTC