RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

I agree. Sorry about the delay I missed the actin point at the bottom. (Per=
haps others did as well? Hint hint.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Richards, Jan [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: 13 April 2015 18:51
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

Hi all,

Below is an updated proposal to replace the current ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria =
(http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#exit).=20

Note:
- The wording borrows from HTML5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/p=
ublic-permissive-exit-criteria.html)
- The section: "Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities" is ta=
ken from existing approved Exit Criteria.

----------------------
For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there mus=
t be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each su=
ccess criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different s=
et of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented=
 by a single product.

*Independent authoring tools*
are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the sa=
me source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no b=
earing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirem=
ent. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly avail=
able version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass t=
he test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.

*Implemented*=20
refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given =
authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is =
in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.

*Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*
<THIS SECTION COPIED FROM EXISTING APPROVED EXIT CRITERIA>
For the thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria that are dependent on WCAG 2.0 [=
3] for their levels, each ATAG 2.0 success criterion must be implemented fo=
r two WCAG 2.0 success criteria at each level: A, AA, and AAA. These six WC=
AG 2.0 success criteria are a sampling of the requirements of WCAG (e.g. te=
xt alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility, sufficient co=
ntrast).
-----------------------

Please help ATAG 2.0 to move through CR by sending a message signalling whe=
ther or not you agree with this proposal.

Cheers,
Jan


(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E [email protected]

________________________________________
From: Richards, Jan
Sent: March-30-15 5:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

Hi all,

On today's call I said I would update the wording based on the conversation=
:

-------------
For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there mus=
t be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each su=
ccess criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different s=
et of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented=
 by a single product.

*Independent authoring tools*
are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the sa=
me source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no b=
earing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirem=
ent. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly avail=
able version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass t=
he test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.

*Implemented*
refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given =
authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is =
in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.

*Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*
Thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria are dependent on WCAG 2.0 for their leve=
ls (i.e. A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG), B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generati=
on After Authoring Sessions (WCAG), etc.). These success criteria will be c=
onsidered implementable if implementations meet at least 50%(@@80??@@) of t=
he applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria.
-------------

For internal group use... my opinion on the likely level of WCAG 2.0 confor=
mance that can be expected during CR testing (NOT whether tools will confor=
m in the future):

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains web-bas=
ed user interfaces, then those web-based user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 =
success criteria.
- JR: In CR testing, likely to find some simple tools meeting 80-90% of WCA=
G Level A.

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The author=
ing tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an au=
thoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web c=
ontent (WCAG).
- JR: In CR testing, most tools will meet this by NOT auto-generating. So W=
CAG % irrelevant.

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the au=
thoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web co=
ntent during an authoring session, then at least one of the following is tr=
ue
- JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by very simple tools with just a few =
automatic outputs that impact just a small amount of WCAG (e.g. setting hea=
ding level, text bold, insert image).

B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the authoring=
 tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, =
and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the out=
put, then at least one of the following is true.
- JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by tools with Save As. Likely will me=
et 80-90% of WCAG Level A.

B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG): If the authoring tool supp=
orts copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility informati=
on (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is bot=
h the source and destination of the copy-paste and the source and destinati=
on use the same web content technology.
- JR: Common feature, so probably WCAG 100%.

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not pla=
ce restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restri=
ctions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met.
- JR: In CR testing, likely to be tools with text editor mode. So WCAG 100%=
 possible with the right author.

B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a=
 choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g.=
 styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WC=
AG) are at least as prominent as options that will not.
- Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testi=
ng, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Lev=
el A.

B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool prov=
ides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g. attribute values), then=
 mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to acce=
ssibility information (WCAG).
- Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testi=
ng, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Lev=
el A.

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool provi=
des functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to mod=
ify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content.
- Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR testi=
ng, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 Lev=
el A.

B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides =
templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of=
 template uses.
- JR:  In CR testing, likely will involve simple templates that will meet +=
90% of WCAG Level A but with many SC's N/A (e.g. no video, etc.)

B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides authors =
with the ability to add or modify web content in such a way that a WCAG 2.0=
 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that su=
ccess criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts image=
s should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the abilit=
y to edit text tracks should check for captions).
- JR:  In CR testing, likely to find checking tools with automatic and manu=
al tests meeting +90% of WCAG Level A

B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG): If checking (see Success Criterion B.3.1.=
1) can detect that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is not met, then repair sug=
gestion(s) are provided.
- JR: Most checking tools from B.3.1.1 will explain how to fix, so +90% of =
WCAG Level A

B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG): A range of examples in the documentation (e.=
g. markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible au=
thoring practices (WCAG).
- JR: Only 2 instances required. So WCAG % irrelevant.


Cheers,
Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E [email protected]