Re: [Proposal] Conformance profiles for UAAG 1.0

Looks fine to me.

At 12:06 PM 5/10/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Dear UAWG,
>
>I received an action item at the 4 April 2002 teleconference [1]
>to propose some text for the chapter on conformance about
>"conformance profiles" for other specifications (issue 520 [2]).
>
>  - Ian
>
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#520
>
>
><PROPOSAL>
>3.11 Including UAAG 1.0 requirements in other specifications
>
>Authors of technical specifications (such as W3C Recommendations)
>should incorporate the requirements of UAAG 1.0 as part of
>conformance to their specifications. This may be done by direct
>inclusion, or by reference using a conformance profile.  Direct
>inclusion promotes the integration of accessibility requirements;
>inclusion by reference is easier to do.
>
>3.11.1 General tips
>
>  1) Identify accessibility features of the specification where
>  they are defined (see checkpoint 8.1). Optionally, create an
>  appendix of these accessibility features as well.
>
>  2) Remember to include user interface requirements as part of
>  conformance to the specification.  Authors of technical
>  specifications tend to focus more on rendering or other
>  content-related behavior and less on user interface
>  requirements. UAAG 1.0 makes a number of user interface
>  requirements that authors will need to consider (such as those
>  in Guideline 5 pertaining to viewport behavior).
>
>  3) Include a general reference to UAAG 1.0 and Techniques for
>  UAAG 1.0 (see the section "How to refer to UAAG 1.0").
>
>For more information on designing specifications that promote
>accessibility, refer to WAI's "XML Accessibility Guidelines"
>[XAG10].
>
>3.11.2 Direct inclusion of requirements
>
>  1) Rather than include the generic UAAG 1.0 requirements, tailor
>  them to the specification. Be specific in the requirement, and
>  include (in context) a reference to the original UAAG 1.0
>  checkpoint.  The following examples illustrate what is
>  meant by direct inclusion:
>
>   - In an HTML specification, where the SCRIPT, APPLET, and
>   OBJECT elements are defined, include a statement such as "Per
>   checkpoint 3.4 of UAAG 1.0, a conforming user agent must allow
>   configuration not to execute scripts, applets, or other
>   executable content."
>
>   - In a CSS specification, where the 'text-decoration' property
>   is defined, include a statement such as "A conforming user
>   agent must either:
>       a) allow configuration to override the 'blink' value
>          with the 'none' value, or
>       b) ignore the 'blink' value.
>   This is required by checkpoint 3.3 of UAAG 1.0 [UAAG10]."
>
>  Note how these examples refer to the specific elements,
>  attributes, properties, etc. of the specifications.
>
>  2) Including some UAAG 1.0 requirements in a specification is
>  better than including no requirements. However, since UAAG 1.0
>  requirements are designed to complement one another, arbitrary
>  selection of requirements may result in accessibility gaps.
>  Authors are encouraged to select requirements in groups defined
>  by the conditional content mechanisms of content, selection,
>  and input modality labels.
>
>3.11.3 Conformance profiles
>
>Section G.5 of the SVG 1.0 Recommendation states:
>
>  "Additionally, an authoring tool which is a Conforming SVG
>  Generator conforms to all of the Priority 1 accessibility
>  guidelines from the document "Authoring Tool Accessibility
>  Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG] that are relevant to generators of SVG
>  content."
>
>This statement requires conformance to the Authoring Tool
>Accessibility Guidelines as part of conformance to SVG 1.0 (for
>certain classes of tools). This type of "conformance requirement
>by reference" is also possible for UAAG 1.0. However, since
>conditional conformance (section 3.2) to UAAG 1.0 can vary beyond
>three conformance levels, it is important for references to state
>precisely what is required. This is called a conformance profile.
>
>This section explains how to create a valid conformance profile
>to UAAG 1.0. UAAG 1.0 does not define any (named) conformance
>profiles, just the mechanism for creating them.
>
>A valid conformance profile must include the following
>information:
>
>  1) The guidelines title/version
>
>  2) The conformance level required: "A", "Double-A", or
>     "Triple-A".
>
>  3) Content type labels: The profile must include at
>     least one content type label (whose requirements
>     must be satisfied).
>
>  4) Selection label: The profile must indicate whether
>     a conforming user agent is required to implement
>     a selection mechanism.
>
>A valid conformance profile should include the following
>information:
>
>  1) Applicability: Which checkpoints (or portions of checkpoints)
>  do not apply for this specification. For instance, if a
>  specification does not define "tables", the conformance profile
>  should indicate that checkpoint 10.1 does not
>  apply. Specification authors should include rationale in their
>  profiles that explains why a checkpoint does not apply.
>
>A valid conformance profile may include the following
>information:
>
>  1) Input modality labels: If conformance for pointer or voice
>  input is required in addition to keyboard input.
>
>Note that the following are always required and therefore need
>not appear in a conformance profile:
>
>  1) Keyboard input requirements
>  2) Content focus requirements (only when the content includes
>     enabled elements; see checkpoint 9.1).
>
>The following is an example of a valid conformance profile:
>
><EXAMPLE>
>  "As part of conformance to MyFormat 1.0, a user agent must
>   satisfy the following conformance profile of the
>   "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [UAAG10]:
>
>   a) Conformance Level A
>
>   b) Content type labels: VisualText, ColorText, Image,
>      Animation, and Video. This means that a conforming
>      MyFormat user agent must satisfy the requirements
>      associated with those labels; refer to UAAG 1.0
>      section 3.5 for details.
>
>   c) Selection: A conforming MyFormat user agent must
>      implement a text selection mechanism, and therefore
>      satisfy the requirements associated with the UAAG 1.0
>      selection label; refer to UAAG 1.0 section 3.7
>      for details. A conforming MyFormat user agent is
>      only required to allow users to select text content.
>
>   d) Applicability: The following UAAG 1.0 checkpoints
>      do not apply to MyFormat and therefore do not need
>      to be satisfied for conformance to this specification:
>
>       - 1.2, 3.4, 9.5, 9.6: MyFormat does not allow inclusion
>                             of scripts. Thus, there are
>                             no author-supplied event handlers.
>       - 2.4, 2.6: MyFormat does not involve synchronization.
>       - 2.5, 4.6: MyFormat does not define captions.
>       - 10.1: MyFormat does not define tables.
>       [And so on]
></EXAMPLE>
>
>Then, in the references section, include the URI of the UAAG
>1.0 specification.
>
></PROPOSAL>
>
>Notes on the proposal:
>
>  - I don't think it's necessary to say anything special about
>  mixing formats (e.g., XHTML + MathML + SVG), but I haven't
>  thought about it much.
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 17:33:32 UTC