RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

Alastair,

Several WCAG 2.0 SC are going to present more challenge for web authoring apps in fulfilling A.1.1.1.  That includes 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.2 when it comes to auto update, 2.2.5, 2.4.5, 3.2.5, and 4.1.2.

Also B.3.1.1 is another challenge, even with manual checking.  There are so many ways to create content that breaks WCAG 2.0 SC that it is no small task to meet B.3.1.1 even at level A.

Jan, we are not looking for a perfect authoring tool.  We are looking examples where at least two authoring tools can meet a given SC.  In your case of page title below, all you need is to find two authoring tools with templates that come with page titles, not two authoring tools that meet every WCAG 2.0 SC.

All best,
Alex

From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:26 AM
To: Alastair Campbell; Alex Li (LCA)
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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