RE: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

Hi Gregg,

(I agree that once we work something out, it would be great to have WCAG-WG take a look)

Re: Part A, I think I can agree to take this back to AUWG:

*         developer-installed web-based UIs must simply conform to WCAG2 (in a context specified by a claimant, if any, just like any other website)

*         customer-installed web-based tools must potentially be able to conform to WCAG2 when installed in a context that the claimant specifies. An informative technique could be for developers of these types of tools to maintain their own on-line demo version for testing.

Re: Part B, there is still an issue...

And in fact I'll go further and say that IMO authoring tools that output technologies that are known to lack browser+AT accessibility support should still be able to qualify for ATAG 2.0 conformance. For example, imagine a format SVGX that encodes vector based graphics and has language features that encode lots of accessibility information. I think it should be possible for an authoring tool to meet ATAG 2.0 by supporting authoring of that accessibility information even before an accessible SVGX browser+AT combination has actually been released. To make it clear that ATAG 2.0 conformance does not imply WCAG 2.0 conformance of produced content we could strengthen the existing note which currently reads:
"Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use, it would be possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces, including whether the WCAG 2.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met. However, this WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0."

So I guess I'd like to see a term like "potentially WCAG-conforming web content" (e.g. if a supporting browser+AT comes along) even when it is known that any particular resulting web content can't actually meet WCAG due to lack of accessibility support.

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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 12, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org; Loretta Guarino Reid
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0




On Aug 12, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Richards, Jan wrote:


Hi all,

My discussion with Gregg fell off the list, so I'm putting it back on...(plus I'm adding Loretta)

For clarity, I'll treat Part A and B separately...

Part A (accessibility of the tool to authors):
I see that "accessibility supported" is easier to apply to Part A than to Part B (as explained in previous posts). But is still complicated by the fact that there are at least two classes of web-based tools while some Web-based tools are  installed on the web by the developer in known places (Facebook, Google Docs, etc.)others are *not installed on the web by the developer* (TinyMCE, CKedit, etc.) but instead are installed by customers  into environments unknown to the developer.

If not installed on the web by the developer - then it would seem that their contribution would be 1) to make sure that it COULD be installed on environments that support accessibility - in a fashion that does.  and   2)  that they include any instructions for installation that would be needed to understand what an installer should look for to install it so the accessibility would work.

Of course if it is not installed by the developer the developer can't make a WCAG claim of any kind since there is no URL. But they could say that it "Meets WCAG 2.0 when installed properly" and then define what properly means.

Installation on platforms that don't support accessibility or that don't allow "proper installation" would not result in WCAG conformance -- or rather wouldn't be able to meet WCAG so would be WCAG conformant.


Does that make sense?  Address your question?




Part B (support for accessible content authoring):
You said "for the output -- it just needs to be CAPABLE OF CREATING WCAG conformant output.  right?  "

That's close, but we can't just say that because *almost* any tool is capable of creating empty documents and empty documents in any technology tend to be accessible.

So, instead we reference WCAG2 with respect to things like:
-          Automatically generated content (B.1.1)
I presume this would be "generates it in WCAG conformant form - or prompts author for additional input needed" ?

-          Restructuring and recoding content (B.1.2)
-          Restrictions placed on authors (B.2.1)
-          Templates provided (B.2.4)
-          Checking and Repair (B.3)

good..

But getting back to your statement "capable of creating conformant content"...are you suggesting that for Part B, ATAG 2.0 might use the term "conform", but allow authoring tools to pick the most preferential user agent and AT context (since they are capable of conforming under those conditions)?

Well now we are moving away from things we have discussed so I would say "in my opinion - they could claim that it can generate accessible content.   If limitations on that are known (e.g. for only one platform or user agent) then that should be stated.


(Actually all my comments on this are "my best guess/opinion as to what the WG would say."  We can get an WG call on anything you would like to specifically have a WG opinion on. )


That help?





Cheers,
Jan

--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto: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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 11, 2011 5:31 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

sorry
I thought you were talking about the Accessibility of the TOOL

for the output -- it just needs to be CAPABLE OF CREATING    WCAG conformant output.  right?

(OK to put this on the list if you like.  I see we dropped off but don't know if you did that or I accidentally did)

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net


On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

The difference is that a website developer always has control over at least the web technologies (or parts thereof) that they choose to use and the human language of the site (though not third-party content) and in some cases (e.g. intranets) even who  can access the content (and many sites also sniff IP addresses to determine country of origin). With this information they can take a pretty good guess at user agent and AT availability.

The authoring tool (e.g. of Dreamweaver) on the other hand doesn't know if the tool will be used to build a public site or  intranet, in which country, and doesn't know what the human language of the output will be. And they also don't know what features of web content technologies an author will choose to use.

Remember, ATAG 2.0 is not attempting to imply any WCAG 2.0 stamp of approval for everything created by an ATAG 2.0 conforming tool. It's simply trying to help tools help their users to get to a point where they can pursue the WCAG 2.0 conformance process, if they are interested.

Cheers,
Jan

--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto: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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 11, 2011 4:54 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0


On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:




Hi Gregg,

My comments are inline, marked "JR":


--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto: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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 11, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0



On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:





Hi all,

So WCAG-WG still feels that we are still not being clear enough that meeting WCAG2 is not a guarantee of accessibility to all people (btw: for more on Gregg's perspective see his message to WAI-IG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2011JulSep/0008.html).

This is a bit tricky because we use the term "accessible" over a 100 times in ATAG2, all grounded upon two definitions:
-          accessible content (WCAG): Web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA).
-          accessible authoring tool user interfaces: Authoring tool user interfaces that meet the success criteria of a level in Part A of ATAG 2.0.

In their reply, WCAG-WG make two suggestions: "WCAG 2.0 conforming", which we can't use because of the WCAG 2.0 "accessibility-supported" requirement, and "WCAG2.0 accessible". Since we already append (WCAG 2.0) to terms that refer to those guidelines for their definitions, perhaps we can simply be more clear and say "accessible content (WCAG 2.0)".

Not sure I understand the concern about "WCAG 2.0 conforming"

JR: The problem is explained here: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-rel-wcag
Basically, in order for web content to be said to conform, the availability of AT and user agents needs to be taken into account, which is much easier from a WCAG perspective (e.g. the webmaster of a bank's intranet site) than from an ATAG perspective (e.g. a web-based authoring tool that is open to all). Previously, we tried to weasel around that requirement and still say "conforms" but it was called out by a commenter.

GV:  I read your doc at the link above.  And I'm not sure I see the difference.   We also have content that can be viewed from all of the same environments you cite...

And if there IS no at on the platform that will work -- and it is needed by WCAG for access -- then the Authoring tool ISN'T accessible in any definition of the word.     If you need AT for the tool to be accessible -- and there is no AT on the platform -- then the tool won't be accessible -- and saying that it is is ....    well..  misleading at best.

Am I missing something?







But you can't use "accessible content (WCAG 2.0)"  if appending (WCAG 2.0) implies the definition came from WCAG 2.0 because we carefully did not define "accessible" or "accessible content" -- so you would be breaking your own convention (and implying WCAG 2.0 did define this term)

JR: We aren't appending "(WCAG)" to imply that the definition came from WCAG 2.0, we did it to clarify that the definition is grounded on "meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA)", but I do see how it could be misinterpreted.

But can you explain your comment about "accessibility-supported" being a problem in saying "WCAG 2.0 conforming?"

JR: See above.

otherwise I think you could use          "WCAG2-accessible content"
though I think WCAG2-conforming  is a better adjective.

JR: I agree that WCAG2 conforming is much nicer sounding. If you (and the relevant WCAG-WG folks) agree with our concern about the "accessibility supported" issue, is there another editorial way to handle this? E.g. we could always say "conforming*" where the "*" would link to our explanation about "accessibility supported"?


This leaves "accessible authoring tool user interfaces". So as not to be out of step with WCAG 2.0, we should make sure that in Part A we are recommending steps that will increase accessibility rather than guarantee it to everyone.

Here again - you might just substitute   ATAG-conforming authoring tool user interfaces     or   WCAG2-conforming authoring tool user interfaces

JR: We also cover non-web-based tools so we wouldn't use a WCAG reference. On the other hand, this issue is much easier to handle because there are not the constant references to WCAG for which we need a shorthand.

Just fodder for your discussion.

JR: Thanks for the fodder :)

Cheers,
Jan




Anyhow, I think we should discuss this on Monday.

Cheers,
Jan

--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto: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

From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org> [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richards, Jan
Sent: August 11, 2011 1:37 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Subject: FW: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

Here is WCAG-WG's reply:

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com<mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com>>
Date: August 10, 2011 10:33:53 PM EDT
To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>>, Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca<mailto:jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca>>
Cc: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

The WCAG Working Group has reviewed your responses, and we accept all of them except WCAGWG17.

We have run into issues in the past with calling content accessible, since no content is completely accessible to all people. We strongly encourage you to find a different term.

We can say that it is WCAG 2.0 conforming. or perhaps even "WCAG2.0 accessible". But we certainly do not say or imply that WCAG makes pages accessible as an absolute and in fact go to great pains to say that meeting ALL WCAG, even at AAA and even if you do all the advisory techniques, will not make pages accessible to all. We feel that the use of the term "accessible content" raises unrealistic expectations.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>> wrote:
WCAG Working Group:

Thank you for your comments on the 8 July 2010 Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/). The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 26 August 2011 to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our response. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will mark your comment as "no response" and close it. If you need more time to consider your acknowledgement, please let us know. You can respond by email to public-atag2-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-atag2-comments@w3.org>. Note that this list is publicly archived.

Since many of the comments were related, we have kept all the comments on a topic together in a spreadsheet format, so you can see your comments in the context of the others.  You can search for your specific comments by searching for your code "WCAGWG". The spreadsheet of comments is located at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html

The AUWG has published a new working draft of ATAG 2.0 and Implementing ATAG 2.0, so you can see the results of your comments in the document.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-ATAG20-20110721/

Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue, you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews) to public-atag2-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-atag2-comments@w3.org>. Formal objections will be reviewed during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in
advance of the meeting.

Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of ATAG 2.0.

Regards,


Jutta Treviranus, AUWG Chair
Jeanne Spellman, AUWG Staff Contact