Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

Hi all,

I agree with the proposal

Best
Alessandro

Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Apr 2015, at 19:53, Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Below is an updated proposal to replace the current ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#exit). 
> 
> Note:
> - The wording borrows from HTML5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html)
> - The section: "Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities" is taken from existing approved Exit Criteria.
> 
> ----------------------
> For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product.
> 
> *Independent authoring tools*
> are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly available version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass the test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.
> 
> *Implemented* 
> refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.
> 
> *Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*
> <THIS SECTION COPIED FROM EXISTING APPROVED EXIT CRITERIA>
> For the thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria that are dependent on WCAG 2.0 [3] for their levels, each ATAG 2.0 success criterion must be implemented for two WCAG 2.0 success criteria at each level: A, AA, and AAA. These six WCAG 2.0 success criteria are a sampling of the requirements of WCAG (e.g. text alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility, sufficient contrast).
> -----------------------
> 
> Please help ATAG 2.0 to move through CR by sending a message signalling whether or not you agree with this proposal.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Richards, Jan
> Sent: March-30-15 5:10 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On today's call I said I would update the wording based on the conversation:
> 
> -------------
> For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product.
> 
> *Independent authoring tools*
> are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly available version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass the test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.
> 
> *Implemented*
> refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.
> 
> *Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*
> Thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria are dependent on WCAG 2.0 for their levels (i.e. A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG), B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG), etc.). These success criteria will be considered implementable if implementations meet at least 50%(@@80??@@) of the applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria.
> -------------
> 
> For internal group use... my opinion on the likely level of WCAG 2.0 conformance that can be expected during CR testing (NOT whether tools will conform in the future):
> 
> A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains web-based user interfaces, then those web-based user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to find some simple tools meeting 80-90% of WCAG Level A.
> 
> B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The authoring tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG).
> - JR: In CR testing, most tools will meet this by NOT auto-generating. So WCAG % irrelevant.
> 
> B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content during an authoring session, then at least one of the following is true
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by very simple tools with just a few automatic outputs that impact just a small amount of WCAG (e.g. setting heading level, text bold, insert image).
> 
> B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output, then at least one of the following is true.
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by tools with Save As. Likely will meet 80-90% of WCAG Level A.
> 
> B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG): If the authoring tool supports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is both the source and destination of the copy-paste and the source and destination use the same web content technology.
> - JR: Common feature, so probably WCAG 100%.
> 
> B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met.
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to be tools with text editor mode. So WCAG 100% possible with the right author.
> 
> B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g. styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not.
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testing, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Level A.
> 
> B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g. attribute values), then mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to accessibility information (WCAG).
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testing, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Level A.
> 
> B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content.
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testing, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Level A.
> 
> B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses.
> - JR:  In CR testing, likely will involve simple templates that will meet +90% of WCAG Level A but with many SC's N/A (e.g. no video, etc.)
> 
> B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content in such a way that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions).
> - JR:  In CR testing, likely to find checking tools with automatic and manual tests meeting +90% of WCAG Level A
> 
> B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG): If checking (see Success Criterion B.3.1.1) can detect that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is not met, then repair suggestion(s) are provided.
> - JR: Most checking tools from B.3.1.1 will explain how to fix, so +90% of WCAG Level A
> 
> B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG): A range of examples in the documentation (e.g. markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices (WCAG).
> - JR: Only 2 instances required. So WCAG % irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 14:34:07 UTC