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

Hi all,

I agree with Jason. But I think other leg is needed to hold the table: The accessibility review tools.

There are many tools but not in all languages and, in addition, many (if not all) generated naturally false positives and false negatives. Also generate extensive reports difficult to understand for a non-expert in accessibility.

We need tools that can review content fragments, while it is generating and speak the language of the people who create that content.

Best,
Emmanuelle

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Patrono y Directora General
Fundación Sidar - Acceso Universal
Email: coordina@sidar.org
Personal: Emmanuelle@sidar.org
Web: http://sidar.org



-----Mensaje original-----
De: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Enviado el: sábado, 09 de abril de 2016 16:54
Para: Chaals McCathie Nevile; WCAG; Jutta Treviranus
CC: Jutta Treviranus; David MacDonald; WCAG; Andrew Kirkpatrick; John Foliot
Asunto: RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...



>-----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.

________________________________

Received on Saturday, 9 April 2016 19:01:36 UTC