Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

I would like to re-confirm that I agree with this proposal, to the list.

thanks
Jutta

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Alessandro Miele <alessandro.miele@standard=
ware.net> wrote:
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> I agree with the proposal
>=20
> Best
> Alessandro
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 19:53, Richards, Jan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi all,
>>=20
>> Below is an updated proposal to replace the current ATAG 2.0 Exit Criter=
ia (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#exit).=20
>>=20
>> Note:
>> - The wording borrows from HTML5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-polic=
y/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 =
must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each=
 success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a differen=
t set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemen=
ted 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 n=
o bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requi=
rement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly av=
ailable version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pas=
s 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 giv=
en authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This =
is 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 =
whether 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 conversat=
ion:
>>=20
>> -------------
>> For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there =
must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each=
 success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a differen=
t set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemen=
ted 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 n=
o bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requi=
rement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly av=
ailable version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pas=
s 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 giv=
en authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This =
is 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 l=
evels (i.e. A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG), B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Gener=
ation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG), etc.). These success criteria will b=
e considered implementable if implementations meet at least 50%(@@80??@@) o=
f the applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria.
>> -------------
>>=20
>> For internal group use... my opinion on the likely level of WCAG 2.0 con=
formance that can be expected during CR testing (NOT whether tools will con=
form in the future):
>>=20
>> A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains web-=
based 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 =
WCAG Level A.
>>=20
>> B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The aut=
horing tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an=
 authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible we=
b content (WCAG).
>> - JR: In CR testing, most tools will meet this by NOT auto-generating. S=
o 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 f=
ew automatic outputs that impact just a small amount of WCAG (e.g. setting =
heading level, text bold, insert image).
>>=20
>> B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the author=
ing tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformation=
s, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the =
output, 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 s=
upports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility inform=
ation (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is =
both the source and destination of the copy-paste and the source and destin=
ation 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 =
place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those res=
trictions 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 1=
00% possible with the right author.
>>=20
>> B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided wit=
h 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 te=
sting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 =
Level A.
>>=20
>> B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool p=
rovides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g. attribute values), t=
hen mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to a=
ccessibility information (WCAG).
>> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR te=
sting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 =
Level A.
>>=20
>> B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool pr=
ovides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to =
modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content.
>> - Only applies to a relatively small subset of WCAG 2.0 issues. In CR te=
sting, likely to be relatively simple tools meeting at 90-100% of WCAG 2.0 =
Level A.
>>=20
>> B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provid=
es 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 mee=
t +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 autho=
rs 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 im=
ages should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the abi=
lity to edit text tracks should check for captions).
>> - JR:  In CR testing, likely to find checking tools with automatic and m=
anual 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 =
suggestion(s) are provided.
>> - JR: Most checking tools from B.3.1.1 will explain how to fix, so +90% =
of 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
>=20