some comments/questions on B.1.1.1 and B.1.1.2 of ATAG2.0

Based upon:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110718/


B.1.1.1 - replace "Authors" with "Authoring tools" to make clear
that authoring tools are in fact being tested, not authors..

What exactly is a "default option" - can we get rid of "default" and just
say "option" as in "authoring tools provide an option" - Please explain
to me what use of the word "default" adds in this context..
testability of "-generated for- publishing" (I know we have a definition
of "publishing" but is this testing "intent" (subjective))?

Is it always
clear and distinct when content is generated for publishing as opposed to
not generated for publishing or generated not for publishing - emphasis on
"content" vs. "generation" and placement of "not"?

How soon after the end of an authoring session?  Always before the beginning of
the next authoring session or exiting the tool?

I think WCAG WG had a concern about use of
"accessible" in front of "web content" (the idea being that no content is
absolutely accessibile to all and in all situations), and preferred the
term "WCAG20-compliant" content?  I know we talked about it at last teleconference
and ATAG situation may be different, but do we have language to this effect in
ATAG (if WCAG WG has questions others may as well..)

Do we have a definition or clear understanding of what specifically is or
is not "automatically generated" web content?

B.1.1.2 -  replace "Authors" with "Authoring tools" to make clear
that authoring tools are in fact being tested, not authors..
What exactly is a "default option" - can we get rid of "default" and just
say "option" as in "authoring tools provide an option" - Please explain
to me what use of the word "default" adds in this context.. Do we use the
term "default option" anywhere else in ATAG2.0?

for (a) maybe
say "Conformant:" or "WCAG20-conformant:" instead of "Accessible:", and then
further along in sentence say "WCAG20-conformant" (per rationale mentioned above)?

for (b) maybe say "authoring tools provide prompts" (slight rewording of
"authors are prompted.." - per rationale above) - also maybe say "WCAG20-conformant
information" instead of "required accessibility information" (per rationale above)
How can one objectively determine what is or is not -required- accessibility information
(required by what/whom in what context)?

for (c), what spefically is an "automatic generation process" (for example, when does it
begin/end, what authoring tool components are involved, etc.)?  how long after the automatic
generation process (until another automatic generation process)?
How much accessibility checking is sufficient for this SC (for example, on one element,
all elements, etc.)?  What exactly qualifies as "accessibility checking"?  Accessibility checking
on what exactly (for example, only automatically generated content, or what)?
Is the performance information made available to the author or is it hidden?   If the latter,
how can the author know that it has been done?

for (d), reference applicable comments for (c), plus how long after the process is the
prompting done, and how does the author know what accessibility checking to perform (does the
authoring tool provide sufficient information in the prompt so that the author can do what is
needed - if so, then how do you measure sufficiency)?

for NOTE 2, do you want to say "included in/controlled by the authoring tool" instead of "specified by..
developer" (what happens if there are multiple developers?)

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST