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

Hello Kevin,

> Content can be selected by structure - Not sure that 'selected' covers
> 'navigation and editing'

Have changed to “navigated”, which may be just enough to cover editing, because once you've navigated to a piece of content you want to edit, you can then edit it?

> Honours display settings - Not sure that the description adequately covers
> the ATAG success criteria. Also, I am not sure that the title makes enough
> sense. 'Supports display preferences'?

Thanks, changed to “supports display preferences”.

> (Accessibility) features documented - Not sure that accessibility needs to
> be in parenthesis.

The guideline <https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#gl_a42> covers both accessibility and “all” features, this is why I went for parenthesis, but this may be a 

> Also, is the idea to provide help documentation? Would
> that be closer to title? 'Help documents provided' or 'Support documents
> provided'

As far as I understand it it can be both to provide help documentation, but also to explain how certain accessibility features work. I interpret this to be as wide as explain it to authoring tool implementors, as well as end users.

> Accessible components/plug-ins available - Not sure this is sufficiently
> useful or reflects the ATAG SC sufficiently well. Given the later, might it
> be better to ask 'Accessible components/plug-ins identifiable'? This is not
> the SC but is arguably more useful than just them being available.

This one is the most re-interpreted of the list. I will make sure to get some opinions on it from various experts.

Re available vs identifiable: the same goes for the 'templates' feature just above it. 

I agree with your point that available is not useful if not identifiable. For templates, it is one ATAG criterion, for components/plugins (“pre-authored content”) there are two separate ones.

What about calling these options: “Accessible templates” and “Accessible components/plug-ins”, without either available or identifiable, and then explain in the description that they'd need to be both available and identifiable?

> Number of questions is fine as long as it is clearly communicated and there
> is appropriate progress indicator.

A, good point. I've created an issue for this so that I don't forget https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/9 <https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/9> 

> Revealing the information regarding partial compliance would be essential.
> However, that this is being done would need to be clearly communicated to
> people submitting their tool

Thanks, that's a good idea, have created an issue. https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/10 <https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/10> 

> Link to ATAG might be better opening in a new window with appropriate
> communication. Would be rubbish if user clicked on that and lost any edits
> or progress in form.

Yes, I agree, have updated.

> Minor: Please describe what your support looks like: “accessible
> templates are available, but it is really hard to find them.” -> does
> this need a 'for example': Please describe what your support looks like,
> for example, “Accessible templates are available, but it is really hard
> to find them. Improvements in search will be available in version 11”
> I also threw in a suggested addition to the example to highlight that this
> might be a good thing to do.

Excellent suggestion, have updated this to explicitly say “For example” and add the bit about version 11.

> Looking good

Thanks, Kevin! 

Best,
Hidde


—

Hidde de Vries
Web Accessibility Specialist

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)