Re: [wbs] response to 'Authoring Tools List: first draft review survey'

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