RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
"Richards, Jan" <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:26:28 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.tools |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D417ED@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca> |
--_000_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D417EDocadmailmaild_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alastair, Alex, I'd also like to add that common sense comes into this, since an implementa= tion report needs to be built and approved by the Director. Taking the templates requirement (B.2.4.1) for example: - the group would obviously not choose an implementation that had templates= with just two Level A passes (e.g. titles (WCAG2.4.2-A) and Bypass Blocks = (WCAG2.4.1-A)) but that failed every other SC (i.e. lacking text equivalent= s on images, lacking keyboard navigation, poor contrast, etc. etc. etc.). - at the same time, the group needs some flexibility when real-world implem= entations are imperfect for whatever reason. For example, if a tool include= d templates that almost reached WCAG2 Level A, but lacked page titles (WCAG= 2.4.2-A). 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]<mailto:[email protected]?Subject=3DRe%3A%20AUWG%20Tel= econference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%20time%20has%20changed%20= -%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACB= CD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E&References=3D%3C0B1EB1C972= BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E> ________________________________ From: Alastair Campbell [[email protected]] Sent: April-17-15 5:06 AM To: Alex Li (LCA) Cc: Richards, Jan; [email protected] Subject: Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria Hi Alex You wrote: "WCAG 2.0 has already been tested for implementability. But that was only = for web pages not authoring tools." I=92m trying to think where that would apply differently. The WCAG SC in AT= AG apply to web based interfaces and web output. Just thinking through a few examples: - A.1.1.1 is basically a WCAG check of the authoring interface, that should= apply to any web page/app and isn=92t unique to authoring tools. - B.1.1.1 Content auto-generation after authoring session: it is easy not t= o generate different (inaccessible) content after the authoring session. - B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations: Is a WCAG check of co= ntent output. - B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable: Is non-text content only, so isn= =92t that many SC from WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward WCAG check= that isn=92t particular to authoring tools. - B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options: Nothing unique to authoring tools he= re=85 For a web-based authoring tool (like Defacto/Drupal) the distinction isn=92= t very meaningful, the interface and the output are synonymous. Can you think of any examples where the authoring tools aspect makes it uni= que or harder for authoring tools? Kind regards, Alastair --_000_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D417EDocadmailmaild_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html dir=3D"ltr"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1= 252"> <style id=3D"owaParaStyle" type=3D"text/css"></style> </head> <body ocsi=3D"0" fpstyle=3D"1" style=3D"word-wrap:break-word; color:rgb(0,0= ,0); font-size:14px; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: = 12pt;">Hi Alastair, Alex,<br> <br> I'd also like to add that common sense comes into this, since an implementa= tion report needs to be built and approved by the Director. <br> <br> Taking the templates requirement (B.2.4.1) for example:<br> - the group would obviously not choose an implementation that had templates= with just two Level A passes (e.g. titles (WCAG2.4.2-A) and Bypass Blocks = (WCAG2.4.1-A)) but that failed every other SC (i.e. lacking text equivalent= s on images, lacking keyboard navigation, poor contrast, etc. etc. etc.).<br> - at the same time, the group needs some flexibility when real-world implem= entations are imperfect for whatever reason. For example, if a tool include= d templates that almost reached WCAG2 Level A, but lacked page titles (WCAG= 2.4.2-A).<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Jan<br> <div><br> <div style=3D"font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"> <div style=3D"font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"> <div class=3D"BodyFragment"><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"3"> <div class=3D"PlainText"> <pre id=3D"body">(MR) JAN RICHARDS=0A= PROJECT MANAGER=0A= INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)=0A= OCAD UNIVERSITY=0A= =0A= T 416 977 6000 x3957=0A= F 416 977 9844=0A= E <a tabindex=3D"0" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?Subject=3DRe%3A%20AUW= G%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%20time%20has%20cha= nged%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BC= B740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E&References= =3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%= 3E">[email protected]</a></pre> </div> </font></div> </div> </div> </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px= "> <hr tabindex=3D"-1"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;" id=3D"divRpF667555"><font color=3D"#000000" = face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"><b>From:</b> Alastair Campbell [acampbell@nomens= a.com]<br> <b>Sent:</b> April-17-15 5:06 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Alex Li (LCA)<br> <b>Cc:</b> Richards, Jan; [email protected]<br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria<br> </font><br> </div> <div></div> <div> <div><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt">Hi Alex</span></di= v> <div><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt"><br> </span></div> <div><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt">You wrote:</span><= /div> <span id=3D"OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> <div> <div lang=3D"EN-US"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri,s= ans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)">"<i>WCAG 2.0 has already been tested = for implementability. But that was only for web pages not authoring t= ools.</i>"</span></p> </div> </div> </div> </span> <div><br> </div> <div>I=92m trying to think where that would apply differently. The WCAG SC = in ATAG apply to web based interfaces and web output.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Just thinking through a few examples:</div> <div>- A.1.1.1 is basically a WCAG check of the authoring interface, that s= hould apply to any web page/app and isn=92t unique to authoring tools.</div= > <div>- B.1.1.1 Content auto-generation after authoring session: it is easy = not to generate different (inaccessible) content after the authoring sessio= n.</div> <div>- B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations: Is a WCAG check = of content output.</div> <div>- B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable: Is non-text content on= ly, so isn=92t that many SC from WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward = WCAG check that isn=92t particular to authoring tools.</div> <div>- B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options: Nothing unique to authorin= g tools here=85</div> <div><br> </div> <div> <div>For a web-based authoring tool (like Defacto/Drupal) the distinction i= sn=92t very meaningful, the interface and the output are synonymous.</div> </div> <div><br> </div> <div>Can you think of any examples where the authoring tools aspect makes i= t unique or harder for authoring tools?</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Kind regards,</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Alastair</div> <span id=3D"OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> <div> <div lang=3D"EN-US"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri,s= ans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri,s= ans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p> </div> </div> </div> </span><style>=0A= <!--=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:"Cambria Math"}=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:Calibri}=0A= p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal=0A= {margin:0in;=0A= margin-bottom:.0001pt;=0A= font-size:12.0pt;=0A= font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}=0A= a:link, span.MsoHyperlink=0A= {color:blue;=0A= text-decoration:underline}=0A= a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed=0A= {color:purple;=0A= text-decoration:underline}=0A= p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote=0A= {margin-right:0in;=0A= margin-left:1.0pt;=0A= font-size:12.0pt;=0A= font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}=0A= span.EmailStyle18=0A= {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;=0A= color:#1F497D}=0A= span.EmailStyle19=0A= {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;=0A= color:#1F497D}=0A= span.EmailStyle20=0A= {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;=0A= color:windowtext}=0A= .MsoChpDefault=0A= {font-size:10.0pt}=0A= @page WordSection1=0A= {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}=0A= -->=0A= BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;}P = {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollb= ar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar= -track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style></div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D417EDocadmailmaild_--