RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

Hi Alastair, Alex,

I'd also like to add that common sense comes into this, since an implementation report needs to be built and approved by the Director.

Taking the templates requirement (B.2.4.1) for example:
- the group would obviously not choose an implementation that had templates with just two Level A passes (e.g. titles (WCAG2.4.2-A) and Bypass Blocks (WCAG2.4.1-A)) but that failed every other SC (i.e. lacking text equivalents on images, lacking keyboard navigation, poor contrast, etc. etc. etc.).
- at the same time, the group needs some flexibility when real-world implementations are imperfect for whatever reason. For example, if a tool included templates that almost reached WCAG2 Level A, but lacked page titles (WCAG2.4.2-A).

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<mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca?Subject=Re%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E&References=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E>

________________________________
From: Alastair Campbell [acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: April-17-15 5:06 AM
To: Alex Li (LCA)
Cc: Richards, Jan; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

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