Updated Comment Responses for ATAG 2.0 (21 July 2011 Public Working Draft)

Attached with recent Web Standards Office and Microsoft comments added.

-Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocad.ca

Twitter @OCAD
Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity 

OCAD UNIVERSITY
100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada  M5T 1W1
www.ocadu.ca


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeanne Spellman
> Sent: October 3, 2011 11:14 AM
> To: AUWG
> Subject: Fwd: RE: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool
> Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0
> 
> Here are the Microsoft comments to the working draft of 21 July 2011.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility
> Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:28:20 +0000
> From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
> To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
> CC: Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca>, Cherie Ekholm
> <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com>
> 
> Hi Jeanne,
> 
> 
> 
> Below is our response to AUWG's reply.  Where there is no specific
> response, please consider the AUWG response satisfactory.  Cherie and I
> will continue to assist AUWG to find appropriate solutions to the
> reminding issues.
> 
> 
> Original comment
> 
> AUWG reply
> 
> Response to reply
> 
> MS1: Part B Application Notes #2 The examples seem contradictory
> because
> both examples pertains to automated content, yet they are treated
> differently. Please revise the example to reconcile the contradiction.
> 
> AUWG: We have clarified the wording as follows: "Applicability after
> the
> end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the
> accessibility of web content that they automatically generate after the
> end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1).
> For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a
> content management system, these would be required to meet the
> accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content.
> Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of
> content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated
> or
> automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified
> (e.g. a third-party feed)." [APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/03/28-au-minutes.html#item01]
> 
> The concept of "automatically generate" content does not appear well
> defined.  In the example where the developer changes the template of a
> content management system illustrates the issue.  How is a template
> changed or configured by a developer considered "automatic"?  It
> appears
> the example is saying the threshold of "automation" is something that
> is
> processed in an on-going basis by machine, regardless if it is
> configurable by human.  If that is the case, we ask the working group
> to
> define what is "not automatic".  We encourage deeper analysis of both
> the term "automatic" and related normative text.
> 
> MS2: The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if ATAG
> is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be both.
> This leads to a great deal of structural problems. If it is for a
> single
> tool, then the SCs are too far reaching and the conformance requirement
> does not make room for a simple specialized tool to conform. How does
> ATAG 2.0 conformance work for something like a web accessibility
> toolbar, photo editor, FTP client, or a social networking site? You
> need
> to allow tool makers to say their tool does not provide certain
> function
> and it is not intended to do so, but the tool conforms where it is
> applicable. On the other hand, how would conformance work for a
> collection of tools where some criteria are met via a portion of the
> tools? Would one have to specify which tool(s) is used to conform to
> any
> given criterion? If the collection of tools include tool(s) in which
> the
> conformance claimer has no Intellectual property ownership, would the
> claimer then be held responsible for the accuracy of the claim of such
> tool? What if is there is discrepancy between the tool manufacturer and
> claimers? What if the collection is still not applicable to ATAG in
> full-for example, only relevant to part A? Is the collection deemed
> incomplete? Additionally, where does the value chain of the authoring
> process end? Without knowing the scope, then ATAG 2.0 may require
> consideration of software such as scanner application, a database, a
> web
> service, or enterprise backend systems. Does a mail client become a
> "web
> authoring tool" only when it sends a message to somebody who access
> their email via the web? How is one supposed to know if the mail
> recipient uses a web client? These are extremely difficult questions.
> But if left unanswered, ATAG 2.0 will not be viable in practice. The
> conformance section requires fundamental revision to be viable. Please
> revise accordingly.
> 
> AUWG: We believe that we have addressed the issue in the following
> ways:
> (a) using conditional phrasing on many of the success criteria.
> (b) In addition we have added this wording in the conformance section:
> "Applicability of Success Criteria: The ATAG 2.0 definition of
> authoring
> tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of
> capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account
> authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS
> editor, a status update field in a social networking application,
> etc.),
> many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to
> authoring tools with the given features(s) (e.g., Success Criterion
> B.1.1.1 applies only to authoring tools that automatically generate web
> content after the end of authoring sessions). "[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/04-au-minutes.html#item07]
> 
> Most of the questions posted in this comments are unaddressed by the
> reply of the update.  Please review and address accordingly.  Moreover,
> many of the updated success criteria are still lacking condition
> parameters.
> 
> MS8: A.3.1 There should be exception and consideration for authoring
> environment/OS where there is no keyboard. Either add a condition for
> environment/OS with keyboard or add an exception.
> 
> AUWG: Please see response to
> JC2<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-
> updated14july2011.html#jc2>[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03]
> 
> Most touch screen devices do not use the keyboard for navigation.
> Keyboard is only used for text input.  The current definition of
> keyboard interface does not work with the corresponding SC within the
> context of touch screen devices.  Also, please refresh the term PDA.
> It
> is no longer in use today.
> 
> MS17: A.3.7.2 Please remove the term "third-party" from option A. It is
> not appropriate. This is saying that Microsoft cannot use IE; Google
> cannot use Chrome; and Apple cannot use Safari. Please remove the term
> "third-party" completely.
> 
> AUWG: We have replaced this term with "pre-existing" to distinguish
> "user agents" in the marketplace from something developed by the
> authoring tool developer from scratch.[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03]
> 
> The term "pre"-existing is problematic as User agents may be updated to
> render newer types of content.  We suggest the term "pre" be removed.
> 
> MS19: A.4.1.1 "Undo" is normally not feasible for many scenarios for
> basic web form authoring tool or it depends on the browser to carry out
> the undo. In reality, most actions are reversible without having the
> "undo" function. If action is reversible, then why impose the specific
> function of "undo"? Change the SC to read: "Authoring actions are
> reversible or include warning to authors that the action is
> irreversible."
> 
> AUWG: Reworded as follows: "For authoring actions, one of the following
> are true:
> (a) Reversible: The authoring action can be immediately reversed; or
> (b) Warn and Confirm: The authoring tool includes a warning to authors
> that the action is irreversible and requires authors to confirm the
> action before proceeding.
> - Note 1: Reversing actions (e.g. an "undo" function) are also
> considered authoring actions, meaning they must also meet this success
> criterion (e.g., a "redo" function).
> - Note 2: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions
> (e.g. typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible
> authoring action.
> - Note 3: It is acceptable to clear the authoring action history at the
> end of authoring sessions. "[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03]
> 
> Please remove "immediately" from condition A.  It introduces far too
> much subjectivity into the success criterion.
> 
> OC13: -A.4.2.1 - Regarding documenting "all features" we feel this is
> too broad. This is a requirement for all users, not just people with
> disabilities so we feel it isn't applicable to ATAG. Even with
> narrowing
> to "all 'accessibility-related' features" this could still be very
> broad. For example, why would features that are programmatically
> determinable, such as keyboard shortcuts, need to be 'documented'?
> 
> AUWG: This has been clarified: "A.4.2.2 Document All Features: The
> authoring tool includes documentation for its author-level user
> interface features."
> People with some disabilities benefit more from documentation than
> users
> in general. [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/11-au-minutes#item03]
> 
> We need definition for "author-level user interface features".
> 
> WCAGWG15: B.1.2.2(a): "Option to Save: authors have the option to save
> the accessibility information in another way (e.g., as a "comment", as
> a
> backup copy of the input);" It would be great to add "accessible" to
> "authors have the option to save the accessibility information in
> another [accessible] way."
> 
> AUWG: We have taken a completely different approach to the preservation
> requirements in Guideline B.1.2. The requirements are now:
> 
> - B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the
> authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding
> transformations, then at least one of the following is true:
> Note: This success criteria only applies to transformations in which
> the
> output technology is an "included" technology for conformance.
> (a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the
> output; or
> (b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that
> accessibility information may be lost (e.g. when saving a vector
> graphic
> into a raster image format); or
> (c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility
> checking
> is automatically performed; or
> (d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool
> prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
> AND
> - B.1.2.2 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility: If the authoring tool
> provides optimizing web content transformations then any accessibility
> information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A)
> AND
> - B.1.2.3 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved: If the
> authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve
> non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that
> non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in
> the web content technology of the output. (Level A).
> [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html]
> 
> What are "restructuring transformations" and "recoding
> transformations"?
>   We think the concept of "accessibility information" needs
> reexamination. We believe we are aiming at covering text alternative,
> audio description, captions, and content structure.  If so, there
> should
> be a tighter definition of "accessibility information" and that there
> may be a better term to encompass these items.  Moreover, I don't think
> these items are separated into A, AA, and AAA in WCAG 2.0.
> 
> MS22: B.1.3 "...prior to publishing." Invalidates the SC. If a tool
> generates content in real time, there is no content to meet WCAG 2.0
> prior to publishing. The concept has no meaning. Please remove "prior
> to
> publishing." In B.1.3.1, B.1.3.2, and B.1.3.3.
> 
> AUWG: This wording has been removed and instead a distinction has been
> drawn between autogeneration during authoring sessions (B.1.1.2) and
> auto-generation after authoring session (B.1.1.1).
> - B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG):
> Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically
> generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is
> accessible web content (WCAG).
> Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes
> specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when
> author
> actions prevent generation of accessible web content.
> - B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG):
> Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically
> generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is
> true: [Implementing B.1.1.2] Note 1: Automatic generation includes
> automatically selecting templates for authors.
> Note 2: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes
> specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when
> author
> actions prevent generation of accessible web content.
> (a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without
> author input; or
> (b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are
> prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or
> (c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process,
> accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
> (d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the
> authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
> [APPROVED http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html]
> 
> Please see above comments on the concept of "automatic".
> 
> MS25: B.2.1.2 "Accessibility-related properties" is undefined. Please
> define.
> 
> AUWG: Please see response to
> MS24<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-
> updated14july2011.html#ms24>[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-au-minutes.html]
> 
> The term is merely renamed "web content properties related to
> accessibility information" which is still undefined or at least ill
> defined.
> 
> MS47: B.1.2 How does this apply to something like a copy and paste
> operation from a rich text editor to a plain text editor where
> structural info will be lost? Who is supposed to tell the author that
> the structure is gone? Please explain how the SC applies to
> copy-and-paste or cut-and-paste operations?
> 
> AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See
> WCAGWG15<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-
> updated14july2011.html#wcagwg15>.[APPROVED
> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/16-au-minutes.html#item15]
> 
> WCAGWG15 does not address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additional comments:
> 
> *         We believe case sensitive search is considered an advanced
> search function.  Thus, we recommend moving the case sensitive search
> portion of A 3.5.1 should be moved to AAA.
> 
> *         We recommend removal of the note on B 2.4.1.  It appears
> contradictory to B 2.4.2 & B 2.4.3
> 
> *         We recommend renaming B 2.4.3 to "Author-created template"
> 
> *         We do not believe the question about the problem regarding
> 3rd
> party making claim on authoring tools that they are not responsible for
> is properly addressed in the conformance text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jeanne@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: Alex Li
> Cc: Jutta Treviranus
> Subject: Response to your comments on Authoring Tool Accessibility
> Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Alex:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 "MS". 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
>