More on the ATAG-WCAG relationship

Hi all,

Yesterday, I did what I could to craft a reasonable proposal to replace "accessible content" with a term such as "WCAG-capable content" or "WCAG-compatible"...but I have my doubts because:
- moving to one of these terms will involve a major change to the document (~80 instances)
- we will lose the intuitive ease of "accessible content"
- someone will likely point out that the WCAG- terms lack a version number, meaning we might end up with "WCAG2.0-capable"
- I think the WCAG- terms seem to imply definition by WCAG-WG, when in fact WCAG-WG has only fully defined WCAG Conformance.
- If we take the concern with "accessible" to its most ridiculous end, the name of the entire document "Authoring Tool ACCESSIBILITY Guidelines" would need changing.


So instead I suggest:

(1) We try to be clear in our informative sections that following WCAG 2.0 will result in "content that is more accessible"

(2) when we need to use "accessible content" as shorthand in the normative success criteria, we could say "accessible* content" (note the asterisk) and in the definition of the term:
- we require such content to meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria, but not necessarily the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements, such as "accessibility supported".
- we state that WCAG 2.0 notes "that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas".

Thoughts?

-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: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Richards, Jan
> Sent: August 16, 2011 5:18 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: WCAG-capable proposal
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On yesterday's call we continued the discussion of terms that might
> replace "Accessible Content (WCAG)", which WCAG-WG cautions us against
> using.
> 
> Ideas we have considered:
> -------------------------
> 
> "WCAG-Conformant" - directly implies WCAG conformance, which requires
> only using technologies in "accessibility supported" ways - problematic
> for ATAG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> au/2011JulSep/0061.html)
> 
> "WCAG-Conformant*" - note the asterisk. May still be confusing.
> 
> "potentially WCAG-conforming web content" - too wordy
> 
> "WCAG-capable" was suggested yesterday - for which I took an action to
> write the proposal (below).
> 
> Other ideas that I had while doing this action:
> ------------------------------------------------
> "WCAG-Compatible"
> "Accessible*" - once again using the asterisk.
> 
> 
> Deciding which term to use:
> ===========================
> 
> First, let's look at the term being replaced:
> 
> accessible content (WCAG): Web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success
> criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA).
> 
> If we really want to be exact, we might say something like:
> 
> WCAG-capable/compatible content: Web content that could potentially
> conform to WCAG 2.0 (to Level A, AA, or AAA) as follows:
> -Conformance Level: the WCAG 2.0 " Conformance Level" requirement is
> met.
> -Full Pages: if the content is one or more Web pages, the WCAG 2.0
> "Full Pages" requirement is met.
> -Complete Processes: if the content is a complete process, the WCAG 2.0
> "Complete Processes" requirement is met.
> -Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies: The WCAG 2.0
> "Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies" requirement
> is assumed to be met.
> -Non-Interference: the WCAG 2.0 "Non-Interference" Requirement is met.
> 
> But that's getting complicated, so maybe:
> 
> WCAG-capable/compatible content: Web content that could potentially
> conform to WCAG 2.0 by meeting the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (to Level
> A, AA, or AAA).
> Note: This term refers to potential conformance rather than current
> conformance so the
> WCAG 2.0 Conformance Requirements are not required to be met.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the term "Accessible [Web] Content" appears ~80 times in the
> document, so I will simply try to provide some representative examples.
> 
> (1)
> A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): Web-based authoring tool user
> interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG
> 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA
> success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
> 
> Becomes:
> 
> A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): Web-based authoring tool user
> interfaces are WCAG-capable/compatible. (Level A, AA, or AAA as
> determined by WCAG 2.0)
> -----
> (2)
> accessible templates (WCAG): Templates that can be filled in to create
> web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA or
> AAA),... Note: Under these conditions, some templates will result in
> completely empty documents, which are considered accessible by default.
> 
> Becomes:
> 
> accessible templates (WCAG): Templates that can be filled in to create
> WCAG-capable/compatible content (Level A, AA or AAA),... Note: Under
> these conditions, some templates will result in completely empty
> documents, which are considered WCAG-capable/compatible by default.
> -----
> (3)
> B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates: If the authoring tool includes a
> template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new non-
> accessible templates (WCAG), then authors can enable the template
> selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-
> accessible templates that they create. (Level AA)
> Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the
> accessible templates, the non-accessible templates or both.
> 
> Becomes:
> 
> B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates: If the authoring tool includes a
> template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new templates
> that are not WCAG-compatible, then authors can enable the template
> selection mechanism to display distinctions between the WCAG-compatible
> and non-WCAG-compatible author-created templates. (Level AA)
> Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the WCAG-
> compatible templates, the non-WCAG-compatible templates or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 20:12:47 UTC