Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

I agree thanks Tim

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 1:53 PM, "Richards, Jan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> Below is an updated proposal to replace the current ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteri=
a (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#exit).=20
>=20
> Note:
> - The wording borrows from HTML5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy=
/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html)
> - The section: "Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities" is =
taken from existing approved Exit Criteria.
>=20
> ----------------------
> For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there m=
ust be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each =
success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different=
 set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implement=
ed by a single product.
>=20
> *Independent authoring tools*
> are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the =
same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no=
 bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requir=
ement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly ava=
ilable version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass=
 the test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.
>=20
> *Implemented*=20
> refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a give=
n authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This i=
s in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.
>=20
> *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 =
for two WCAG 2.0 success criteria at each level: A, AA, and AAA. These six =
WCAG 2.0 success criteria are a sampling of the requirements of WCAG (e.g. =
text alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility, sufficient =
contrast).
> -----------------------
>=20
> Please help ATAG 2.0 to move through CR by sending a message signalling w=
hether or not you agree with this proposal.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Jan
>=20
>=20
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
>=20
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E [email protected]
>=20
> ________________________________________
> From: Richards, Jan
> Sent: March-30-15 5:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> On today's call I said I would update the wording based on the conversati=
on:
>=20
> -------------
> For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there m=
ust be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each =
success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different=
 set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implement=
ed by a single product.
>=20
> *Independent authoring tools*
> are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the =
same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no=
 bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requir=
ement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly ava=
ilable version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass=
 the test suite and not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.
>=20
> *Implemented*
> refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a give=
n authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This i=
s in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.
>=20
> *Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*
> Thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria are dependent on WCAG 2.0 for their le=
vels (i.e. A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG), B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Genera=
tion After Authoring Sessions (WCAG), etc.). These success criteria will be=
 considered implementable if implementations meet at least 50%(@@80??@@) of=
 the applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria.
> -------------
>=20
> For internal group use... my opinion on the likely level of WCAG 2.0 conf=
ormance that can be expected during CR testing (NOT whether tools will conf=
orm in the future):
>=20
> A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains web-b=
ased 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 W=
CAG Level A.
>=20
> B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The auth=
oring tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an =
authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web=
 content (WCAG).
> - JR: In CR testing, most tools will meet this by NOT auto-generating. So=
 WCAG % irrelevant.
>=20
> B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the =
authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web =
content during an authoring session, then at least one of the following is =
true
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by very simple tools with just a fe=
w automatic outputs that impact just a small amount of WCAG (e.g. setting h=
eading level, text bold, insert image).
>=20
> B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the authori=
ng tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations=
, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the o=
utput, then at least one of the following is true.
> - JR: In CR testing, likely to be met by tools with Save As. Likely will =
meet 80-90% of WCAG Level A.
>=20
> B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG): If the authoring tool su=
pports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility informa=
tion (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is b=
oth the source and destination of the copy-paste and the source and destina=
tion use the same web content technology.
> - JR: Common feature, so probably WCAG 100%.
>=20
> B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not p=
lace restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those rest=
rictions 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 10=
0% possible with the right author.
>=20
> 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 (=
WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not.
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR tes=
ting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 L=
evel A.
>=20
> B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool pr=
ovides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g. attribute values), th=
en mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to ac=
cessibility information (WCAG).
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR tes=
ting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 L=
evel A.
>=20
> B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool pro=
vides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to m=
odify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content.
> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR tes=
ting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 L=
evel A.
>=20
> B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provide=
s 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.)
>=20
> B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides author=
s 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 =
success criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts ima=
ges should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the abil=
ity to edit text tracks should check for captions).
> - JR:  In CR testing, likely to find checking tools with automatic and ma=
nual tests meeting +90% of WCAG Level A
>=20
> 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 s=
uggestion(s) are provided.
> - JR: Most checking tools from B.3.1.1 will explain how to fix, so +90% o=
f WCAG Level A
>=20
> 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 =
authoring practices (WCAG).
> - JR: Only 2 instances required. So WCAG % irrelevant.
>=20
>=20
> Cheers,
> Jan
>=20
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
>=20
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E [email protected]
>=20
>=20