Hi Alex You wrote: "WCAG 2.0 has already been tested for implementability. But that was only for web pages not authoring tools." I’m trying to think where that would apply differently. The WCAG SC in ATAG apply to web based interfaces and web output. Just thinking through a few examples: - A.1.1.1 is basically a WCAG check of the authoring interface, that should apply to any web page/app and isn’t unique to authoring tools. - B.1.1.1 Content auto-generation after authoring session: it is easy not to generate different (inaccessible) content after the authoring session. - B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations: Is a WCAG check of content output. - B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable: Is non-text content only, so isn’t that many SC from WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward WCAG check that isn’t particular to authoring tools. - B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options: Nothing unique to authoring tools here… For a web-based authoring tool (like Defacto/Drupal) the distinction isn’t very meaningful, the interface and the output are synonymous. Can you think of any examples where the authoring tools aspect makes it unique or harder for authoring tools? Kind regards, Alastair
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 09:07:07 UTC