W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

potential dependencies with authoring tools

From: Kitch Barnicle <barnicle@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:04:08 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.19990913134553.00e2aad0@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for but I reviewed the September
3rd version, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990903/ ,  of the
authoring tool guidelines and found the following dependencies with the August
27th version of the user agent guidelines 

Guideline 1 - Support accessible authoring practices
Dependency: In general we want user agents to be able to render the documents
created by authoring tools.

Authoring tool Checkpoint  1.2, Produce content that conforms to the W3C's Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines . 
Dependency: User agents must be able to render content that conforms to the
W3C's content accessibility guidelines.

Authoring tool Checkpoint 2.1 Use applicable W3C Recommendations. 
Note: I do not like the use of the word applicable in this checkpoint nor in
the comparable user agent checkpoint. Who is supposed to decide which
recommendations are applicable. Are we saying use those recommendations that
can be supported by a product or use those recommendations that apply to
Dependency: User agents should support the same W3C recommendations. 

Authoring tool Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that markup is generated in accordance
with a published specification [Priority 1] 
This is necessary for user agents to be able to transform Web content to a
presentation appropriate to a particular user's needs. 
Dependency: stated above

Authoring tool Checkpoint  2.3 Ensure the tool produces markup in a language
that enables accessibility [Priority 1] 
This is relevant both to the use of an existing document markup language, and
to one which is created or extended for a specific purpose
Dependency - I'm not sure about this one but do we have to address issues
related to "extended" mark up languages. Presumably an author would only
the mark up in way that can be supported by a user agent but I just thought
call attention to it. 

Authoring tool Checkpoint 3.1 Prompt the author to provide alternative
information (e.g., captions, expanded versions of acronyms, long descriptions
of graphics). 
Dependency: As above, the user agent must support alternative information or
degrade gracefully. Do authoring tools need to prompt authors for alternatives
to alternative content? For example, should an authoring tool suggest that an
author provide a text transcript in case a user agent does not support closed
captions?  This checkpoint is also tied to user agent checkpoint 3.6 - When
alternative text has been specified explicitly as empty (i.e., an empty
string), render nothing. 

Authoring tool checkpoint 3.2 Do not insert automatically generated (e.g., the
filename) or place-holder (e.g., "image") equivalent text, except in cases
where human-authored text has been written for an object whose function is
known with certainty. 
Dependency: There appears to be a potential discrepancy  between this
checkpoint and the User agent checkpoint 3.5, which states that if alternative
content is not provided user agents should indicate the type of object
present.  Are these checkpoints suggesting opposite solutions?

Begin User Agent checkpoint dependencies.

User agent checkpoint 3.3 For dependent user agents only. Render content
according to natural language identification. For unsupported natural
languages, notify the user of language changes when configured to do so.
[Priority 1] 
Dependency: I did not see a specific reference to natural languages in the
authoring tool guidelines; however, the content guidelines state that authors
should identify changes in language using the lang attribute. Since the
authoring tools are supposed to produce content that conforms to the content
guidelines it seems as though all three guidelines are tied together here. 

User agent checkpoint 3.4 Provide time-independent access to time-dependent
active elements or allow the user to control the timing of changes.
[Priority 1]

Dependency: Do authoring tools need to create media in a way that will allow
user agents to control the timing or is this solely a user agent issue?

User agent Guideline 4. Allow the user to turn off features that may reduce
Dependency: There are several checkpoints under this guideline which allow the
user to turn off features such as images, background images etc. Should
authoring tools "warn" authors that certain features may not be rendered, for
example, make your page readable if background images are turned off? Or would
this just scare authors away from accessible practices? 

User agent guideline 5 Guideline 5. Ensure user control over document styles
Dependency: This is similar to guideline four above. 

User agent guidelines 9.5 For a selected link, indicate whether following the
link will involve a fee. 
Dependency: Should author tools prompt authors to clearly indicate whether
following a link involves a fee? I don't believe this is covered in the

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 1999 14:05:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:23 UTC