RE: FW: Repository software conformance to WCAG2 and ATAG2?

Or a cross between aggregated content and user-contributed content. Or
AUCC Aggregated User-Contributed Content. (We need another acronym,
right?>

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Donald F. Evans [mailto:donaldfevans@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:16 PM
To: Slatin, John M
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: Repository software conformance to WCAG2 and ATAG2?


Very interesting issue.  It does look similar to the issues being 
discussed in the sub group on the aggregator's issue (how do you conform

to WCAG when you don't control all the content on a page).
. 
*Donald F. Evans*, Sr. Program Manager - Office of Accessibility - AOL
LLC.
Phone: (703) 265-5952 - Email: donaldfevans@aol.com - AIM: donaldfevans
Check out the AOL Ability Blog <http://ability.aol.com>


john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu wrote:
> Very interesting question/example about how to handle conformance and 
> user-contributed content, from the IG list today.
>
> I replied, saying the issue is under active consideration by the WG 
> and telling her that I'd forward the message to this list.
>
> John
>
> "Good design is accessible design."
>
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin 
> FAC 248C 
> 1 University Station G9600 
> Austin, TX 78712 
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
> email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Sarah Currier
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:23 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Repository software conformance to WCAG2 and ATAG2?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been investigating the possibility of providing a conformance
> statement for WCAG 2.0 (if and when it is eventually ratified) for our

> product, intraLibrary.  IntraLibrary is an application that allows 
> organisations to collaboratively manage learning objects via the Web.

> In effect it is a kind of content management system, although the 
> learning objects held in it may or may not eventually be made
available 
> on the Web (they may, for instance, be distributed via a CD-ROM or 
> delivered directly in the classroom on a screen or in a printed 
> handout).  The extent to which intraLibrary may be considered an 
> "authoring tool" is that you can create metadata for a resource, and
you
>
> can export a resource as an IMS Content Package (where it wasn't
> previously) with such metadata.  You can also export metadata on its
own
>
> as an XML file.  Apart from that, we just store content for sharing, 
> we
> don't actually allow any modification of the content within our tool.
>
> I have two issues re conformance to the new guidelines which I am
> finding it difficult to get answers to- I hope someone here can help.
>
> 1. IntraLibrary is not "web content" in the old sense of WCAG 1.0- but
> the new guidelines are supposed to cover web content and applications.

> I think an instance of intraLibrary is a "web unit".  However, we are 
> not allowed a conformance statement that "horizontally" excludes
certain
>
> content from the statement.  In our case we would need to say that
> intraLibrary's baseline is X, and that we conform to Level X, and that

> this conformance statement excludes content held WITHIN intraLibrary 
> (obviously we can't police content held by current and future 
> customers).  We need to be able to state which URLs or range of URLs
DO 
> conform and we can't do that.  Content held in intraLibrary can be 
> previewed in various ways within our interface, but we don't and can't

> control the nature of that content- that is up to our customers after 
> they have purchased the software.
>
> 2. You would then think - well it's because intraLibrary is a piece of
> software that is a tool- perhaps using ATAG 2.0 would be better- the 
> first part of it relates to WCAG 2.0.  Surely the conformance of a
tool 
> doesn't have to include the content used IN the tool... except- it's 
> supposed to ensure that content produced from the tool DOES conform 
> (which we don't do- you could easily import then export a package or 
> resource from intraLibrary that didn't conform, as there is no means 
> within intraLibrary to modify content).  It's not even definite that a

> LO repository is an authoring tool as far as ATAG is concerned- it's
on 
> the very outlying boundary of the definition, and until I found the 
> conformance problem listed above I was on the verge of ditching it as 
> something we had to consider.
>
> I wonder if (a) anyone from WAI had any comments or advice and (b)
> anyone else had come up against similar problems and what they have
done
>
> about it.
>
> At the moment I am assuming we will simply need to provide some kind 
> of
> accessibility statement that is NOT a WCAG/ATAG conformance statement 
> that will assist our customers with determining their baseline and 
> creating their own conformance statement including the content they
make
>
> available with intraLibrary.
>
> (BTW we are committed to accessibility and have developments planned 
> for
>
> our new v3.0 due out this summer that will take care of a couple of
> outstanding accessibility issues we have).
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sarah
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:37:33 UTC