W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Fwd: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:10:31 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

This is a reminder that the comment period for the Last Call Working Draft 
of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ends next Tuesday, 18 
January 2005.

Please find information on how & where to comment below, as well as some 
questions that you might want to address.

Thanks in advance for your comments, which help us develop the guidelines.


- Judy

>Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:18:29 -0500
>To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool 
>Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
>Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) has reached 
>Last Call Working Draft status. It will be under review until 18 January 
>2005. Information on the document and how to comment follows. The document 
>is available at:
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series 
>of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility 
>Initiative (WAI). The other guidelines in this series include the Web 
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility 
>Guidelines (UAAG).
>ATAG 2.0 provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower 
>barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring 
>tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by 
>providing an accessible authoring interface to authors with disabilities, 
>as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of 
>accessible Web content by all authors.
>A Last Call Working Draft announcement means that the Working Group 
>believes that it has satisfied its technical requirements and dependencies 
>with other W3C Working Groups. The Working Group believes that the Working 
>Draft has stabilized. It seeks a broad review of ATAG 2.0 during this 
>period, and expects to request advancement to Candidate Recommendation 
>(where the focus of review will be on implementation testing) after this 
>Last Call review is completed. More information on the W3C Process is 
>available at:
>         http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>Please send comments to the following address by 18 January 2004. Note 
>that this is an extension from the deadline for comments which is listed 
>in the document:
>A public record of comments is available at:
>Review and send comments on the following Last Call Working Draft:
>You may find the following overview helpful for context:
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag
>In addition, an updated Working Draft of a supporting document, 
>Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0, is available for review, though it 
>is not in Last Call status:
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20041122/
>The Working Group is particularly interested in discussion of the 
>following questions:
>   1. Does this document include the features that you think are necessary 
> in an authoring tool that is accessible and that supports authoring of 
> accessible content? Are the priorities of the checkpoints appropriate?
>   2. Is this document easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, and can it be 
> applied to a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0?
>         ( http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 )
>   3. Has the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft reached the right balance between 
> giving developers freedom to work creatively to meet the guidelines, 
> while at the same time developing objective success criteria for each 
> checkpoint?
>   4. This document references another accessibility standard, ISO 16071, 
> which provides guidelines for software and operating system 
> accessibility. Unlike W3C, ISO charges a fee for its documents. In this 
> case, the document costs 110 Swiss francs, or about US$90. Is it 
> reasonable to reference this document?
>   5. Authoring tool makers who claim conformance to ATAG must declare in 
> their conformance statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 1.0 
> and/or WCAG 2.0. Is this a useful approach? Is this explained adequately 
> in the document?
>Since the last Working Draft of ATAG 2.0, the following changes have been 
>   - References to specific sections of the ISO 16071 software 
> accessibility guidelines have been added.
>   - Old Checkpoints 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have been merged into a New 
> Checkpoint 2.1.
>   - Checkpoint 3.4 (care reusing generated alternate content) has been 
> raised to Priority 1.
>   - Checkpoint 3.8 (features related to accessibility) has been lowered 
> to Priority 3.
>   - New Checkpoint 3.9 (Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible 
> authoring) has been added.
>   - Checkpoint 4.1 has been reworded and moved to New Checkpoint 4.3.
>   - Wording of checkpoints have been modified to be more easily testable.
>   - Checkpoint success criteria, conformance level information, and 
> glossary terms are much more detailed.
>NOTE: This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful 
>to avoid cross-postings.
>Thank you in advance for your review.
>Matt May, Team Contact for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 
>Working Group
>Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C
>Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
>32 Vassar Street
>Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 19:10:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:24 UTC