Re: ATAG Report Tool - Initial input on new resource

HI Jennifer,

Thanks for your comments in the ATAG Report Tool survey.


> There are a few examples of authoring tools listed, including Drupal, WordPress and Moodle. Would this also include Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) and other CMS tools on the market that many organizations are using and are familiar with?

Absolutely, it is for all authoring tools. 

In the requirements analysis I tried to draw a distinction between vendors of commercial products and open source communities, as I feel there are certain differences between them.


> * location: Landing page
> * current wording: n/a
> * suggested revision: n/a
> The purpose of the tool, and the format of the evaluation (8 steps) is clear, and on the landing page the measurement is also clear (that it is based success criteria within ATAG). It is also clear, and important, to note the breakdown of steps and what they relate to (editing experience, or encouraging accessibility practices) - 1 to 4 and 4 to 8. 

Thanks! We are planning to revise the content on the start page, I have added your input as a comment in issue 34 <https://github.com/w3c/wai-atag-report-tool/issues/34> (“Revise content on start page)”.


> Note: When I select the “next” link to the move to the next page, I need to scroll up to the top to beginning reading the new page. I’m not a fan of managing focus, but would it make sense to drive the focus to the first heading on the page?


You’re right, this was a bug. It has been updated since the survey, we are now managing focus <https://github.com/w3c/wai-atag-report-tool/issues/12> as part of our effort to make routing more accessible.


> * location: section under “A.1.1: Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible” 
> * current wording: “When authoring tools (or parts of authoring tools) are web-based, conforming to WCAG 2.0 will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.”
> * suggested revision: There is no link to the WCAG page. Add a link for reference. 

I see you’ve added a couple of items related to SCs. The wording is taken directly from ATAG, so that this tool is in harmony with the spec itself.

What I take away from this, is that the visual design doesn’t make it sufficiently clear that this is “external” content. I wonder if we should display something that clarifies the origin of this content?


> * location: section under “A.2.1: Make alternative content available to authors” under “Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content” under “Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media” 
> * current wording: “Time-based” media
> *suggested revision: Add an explanation or examples of “time-based media” in case users are not sure. Add this in the sentence or in the info icon? 


Good point, I have just added an issue for this content suggestion: #35 <https://github.com/w3c/wai-atag-report-tool/issues/35>.


> *location: Section under “A.3.2: Provide authors with enough time” under “Timing Adjustable”
> * current wording: “The authoring tool does not include time limits or at least one of the following is true:” 
> * suggested wording: There is no content after the word “true”, only the word “Level A”, as if something is missing.

This seems like a problem in the data, will fix via #36 <https://github.com/w3c/wai-atag-report-tool/issues/36>.


> I work with an organization currently that is hoping to set parameters in place for their CMS component-building. The ATAG guide will be very helpful and valuable for them. Thanks!

Excellent. that’s great to hear! 

Thanks again for the help on this! 

Best,
Hidde