Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...

I think ATAG and UAAG are great standards that are moving the bar forward.
Eclypse, Sublime, Dreamweaver, Visual Studio are incorporating many of ATAG
requirements. The ARIA spec is built onto auto complete for example...

ATAG and UAAG have new versions fresh off the press thanks to your hard
work and many other volunteers. They are mature documents that have a small
audience, (about 10 browsers, and 200 or so authoring tools) but that small
audience affects millions of users. I'd love to see ATAG and UAAG required
by law. I'm guessing the authoring tools are seeing that as a possibility,
because currently, I think every major authoring tool has hired an
accessibility director or has enlisted outside support or has a committee
that is looking at ATAG. This includes Facebook, LinkedIN, Twitter,
Wordpress, Drupal, Microsoft, Adobe, SAP, Oracle, etc... these tools and
companies cover about 80% (?) of all authored content on the web...

HTML5 has a section for Browsers and a section for authors, maybe we can
adopt that model going forward.... but I thought that is what WAI has
always done... had three tracks Authors, user agents and authoring tools.

I believe since our group will be the only one still chartered, we will
fully explore the integration of UAAG and ATAG for WCAG 3, which is related
to what used to be called WAI2020... it's a long term project.

In the meantime we have 3 task forces who have identified gaps in WCAG 2
... Should we not proceed with a 2.x which incorporates their
recommendations?

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> >A big +1 to this.
>
> +1 to the centrality of authoring tools and to the importance of Authoring
> Tool Accessibility Guidelines.
>
> There are provisions of WCAG 2.0 for which authoring tools may not be able
> to provide direct support. Even then, however, documentation and
> educational materials have a major role in educating and informing
> developers. With better support from authoring tools and greater
> integration into materials that authors are likely to consult, there should
> be less of a need for most authors to apply WCAG directly, except in
> special cases.
>
> I don't think regulators can set requirements on authoring tools while not
> normatively citing WCAG. What regulators need is a standard applicable to
> the content produced, not just the tools used to create it. That an
> ATAG-conformant authoring tool was used is far from sufficient to ensure
> that the resulting content meets accessibility requirements - the author
> might have disregarded some of the prompts and the warnings, for example.
> What regulators need is a content accessibility specification that they can
> cite and which is stable over time.
>
> The Proposed Rule issued by the U.S. Access Board last year in relation to
> section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act does both: it cites WCAG 2.0 but also
> places requirements on authoring tools, and I think this is a welcome move
> in the right direction.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
>
> ________________________________
>