Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

These are all good comments.

I would further like to address the evolution of Candidate 
Recommendation requirements within W3C.  At the time that WCAG went 
through Candidate Recommendation in 2008, W3C was looking for very 
strict proof of implementations in different combinations, so it is not 
surprising that Alex would be very concerned that the simplified exit 
criteria would not be appropriate.

W3C has moved away from those strict requirements for Candidate 
Recommendation. It was explained to me that "Strict exit criteria have a 
cost in time and resources.  They did not provide sufficient benefit for 
the cost to the working groups."   HTML5's exit criteria did not even 
require them to test every part of the spec!  We are certainly not going 
to that casual a level, but we are looking for simplification.

As Jan said, we have to be reasonable about what we bring to the 
Director as examples of implementations.  We aren't going to bring 
inaccessible tools as implementation examples.

Keep in mind that the language we are discussing was approved by the 
ATAG WG in 2013.  It was difficult to come up with the right language 
and we spent weeks on it.  If we wrote in the exit criteria that we had 
to meet 100% of WCAG, then we are stuck on SC like B.2.4.1.  If we pick 
a different percentage, like 50% or 80%, people want a justification of 
why that percentage.  In W3C terms, it made much more sense to pick a 
minimum of 2 WCAG exit criteria at each level, knowing that we were 
going to far exceed that, because W3C normally requires two 
implementations as a example for exit criteria.  These exit criteria are 
not intended for the public --although they are public, they are 
intended to prove to the W3C Director that ATAG is ready to progress as 
a specification.

jeanne

On 4/17/2015 1:55 PM, Richards, Jan wrote:
> BTW: One issue I can see with a "WCAG-SC-first" process would be what to do about any WCAG SC that are typically not applicable in the context of those ATAG SCs.
>
> For example, take WCAG 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)-Level A in the context of templates (ATAG B.2.4.1). I don't think I've ever seen a template that came with videos with a spoken soundtrack (I have seen templates FOR videos e.g. [1]). I think that's because video(with speech) is a type of content that authors would add, not the type that would come pre-populated.
>
> But does that mean that including captioned video in a template is fundamentally not implementable? I don't think so.
>
> [1]http://www.wideo.co/video-templates
>
> 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: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocadu.ca]
> Sent: April-17-15 1:36 PM
> To: Alex Li (LCA); Alastair Campbell
> Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> OK, I think I see what you're saying... that we could look at this from a "WCAG-SC-first" perspective instead of an "ATAG-SC-first" perspective for those 13 SCs that refer to WCAG.
>
> And I agree that some SCs would potentially be harder for tools to manage than others, especially by powerful tools that support/encourage authors to produce complex interfaces.
>
> But while theoretically, an SC like WCAG 1.3.1 could get really hairy, in the context of a relatively simple, but mainstream tool (e.g. TinyMCE, CKedit), relatively few WCAG2 1.3.1 techniques actually kick-in. As a result, I think we can say ATAG is implementable even if it would be much more work for a much more complex tool (but I think it's fair to say that lots of things are much more complex for a much more complex tool - e.g. QA, security, performance, etc.).
>
> 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: Alex Li (LCA) [alli@microsoft.com]
> Sent: April-17-15 1:03 PM
> To: Richards, Jan; Alastair Campbell
> Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: 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
>
>

Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 23:10:58 UTC