- From: Hidde de Vries <hidde@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:09:55 +0200
- To: shawn@w3.org
- Cc: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shawn, > Re: "Does it seem feasible to ask a number of these kinds of questions to > vendors?" > * It is a lot, yet that is what is needed! Hah, yes. > Another thought about the additional text and text box appearing only when > "Partially" is selected, is it would cause the movement on the page that is > not ideal. That is true… but I would say not having the text unless it is needed is a feature as it can reduce mental overhead. As you say. it is a lot already! Thanks, Hidde — Hidde de Vries Web Accessibility Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > On 23 Sep 2019, at 19:51, Shawn Henry via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org> wrote: > > The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Authoring Tools > List: first draft review survey' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for > Shawn Henry. > >> >> --------------------------------- >> Introduction >> >> ---- >> Background: We believe content management systems and other authoring >> tools can make a big difference in making the web more accessible, so >> want to promote adoption of the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines >> (ATAG). To help organizations find authoring tools that support >> accessibility and/or ATAG features, we will create a list of them. We ask >> vendors to submit their authoring tools to the list themselves, answering >> questions about their tool and about their tool's accessibility. >> >> * Background: Requirements analysis >> * Prototype link: Authoring Tools That Support Accessibility >> >> > > > >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Accessibility features: short names and descriptions >> >> ---- >> Please review Proposed names for accessibility features >> Background: To maximize usability of this tool for its target audience >> (website creators, content editors, procurers, developers and authoring >> tool vendors), the editor proposes to use criteria that avoid legalese >> and technicalities of the spec (ATAG 2), while still accurate. So we want >> those two things: easy to understand and accurate.This is a balancing >> act, but if we get it right, we can make our tool more effective. >> These are the features that… >> * … people can filter for >> * … people can see when they open 'Details' for a tool >> * … authoring tool vendors can say 'YES', 'NO', 'PARTIALLY', 'NOT >> SURE' or 'NOT APPLICABLE' about when they submit a tool >> Please consider: >> * Naming usefulWould these feature names make sense to an audience with >> at least basic accessibility knowledge, including web developers, >> designers, content editors, project managers, procurers, authoring tool >> developers? >> * Naming reflects ATAG accuratelyDo these feature names sufficiently >> reflect actual ATAG 2 criteria? >> >> > Comments: > > >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> How we ask vendors about Accessibility Features >> >> ---- >> Please review Submit a tool (note: this is an example of an accessibility >> feature; if we want to support 20 features, we'll have 20 of these >> questions; there'd be as many as there are features) >> The authoring tools list is more useful if users can see how accessible >> each tool is. So we want to ask vendors to say something about a set >> number of accessibility features. Do they have it, do they not have it, >> or do they partially have it? >> Example: “Works with keyboard” can be answered with YES, NO, >> PARTIALLY or NOT SURE / NOT APPLICABLE >> PARTIALLY triggers a text field so that people can explain what they >> mean. It's likely that a lot of features will have partial support. >> * Does it seem feasible to ask a number of these kinds of questions to >> vendors? >> * Would the data we collect this way be useful to display on the >> front-end? (Example: in the Authoring Tools List, view Details for this >> first tool. Under “works with keyboard”, there is a comment about how >> this feature works in this specific authoring tool). >> >> > Comments: > Re: "Does it seem feasible to ask a number of these kinds of questions to > vendors?" > * It is a lot, yet that is what is needed! > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2019Sep/0035.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2019Sep/0037.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2019Sep/0038.html > > Another thought about the additional text and text box appearing only when > "Partially" is selected, is it would cause the movement on the page that is > not ideal. > >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Thanks for your time. Any further comments? >> >> ---- >> >> > Comments: > > >> >> These answers were last modified on 23 September 2019 at 17:48:23 U.T.C. >> by Shawn Henry >> > Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/auth-tool-1/ until 2019-09-23. > > Regards, > > The Automatic WBS Mailer >
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:09:58 UTC