RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
"Richards, Jan" <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:36:13 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.tools |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D41C8A@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca> |
--_000_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D41C8Aocadmailmaild_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alex, OK, I think I see what you're saying... that we could look at this from a "= WCAG-SC-first" perspective instead of an "ATAG-SC-first" perspective for th= ose 13 SCs that refer to WCAG. And I agree that some SCs would potentially be harder for tools to manage t= han others, especially by powerful tools that support/encourage authors to = produce complex interfaces. But while theoretically, an SC like WCAG 1.3.1 could get really hairy, in t= he context of a relatively simple, but mainstream tool (e.g. TinyMCE, CKedi= t), relatively few WCAG2 1.3.1 techniques actually kick-in. As a result, I = think we can say ATAG is implementable even if it would be much more work f= or a much more complex tool (but I think it's fair to say that lots of thin= gs are much more complex for a much more complex tool - e.g. QA, security, = performance, etc.). 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: Alex Li (LCA) [[email protected]] Sent: April-17-15 1:03 PM To: Richards, Jan; Alastair Campbell Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria Alastair, Several WCAG 2.0 SC are going to present more challenge for web authoring a= pps in fulfilling A.1.1.1. That includes 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.2 when i= t comes to auto update, 2.2.5, 2.4.5, 3.2.5, and 4.1.2. Also B.3.1.1 is another challenge, even with manual checking. There are so= many ways to create content that breaks WCAG 2.0 SC that it is no small ta= sk to meet B.3.1.1 even at level A. Jan, we are not looking for a perfect authoring tool. We are looking examp= les where at least two authoring tools can meet a given SC. In your case o= f page title below, all you need is to find two authoring tools with templa= tes that come with page titles, not two authoring tools that meet every WCA= G 2.0 SC. All best, Alex From: Richards, Jan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:26 AM To: Alastair Campbell; Alex Li (LCA) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria 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]<mailto:[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_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D41C8Aocadmailmaild_ 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>=0A= <!--=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:"Cambria Math"}=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:Calibri}=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:Tahoma}=0A= @font-face=0A= {font-family:Consolas}=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=0A= {margin:0in;=0A= margin-bottom:.0001pt;=0A= font-size:12.0pt;=0A= font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}=0A= pre=0A= {margin:0in;=0A= margin-bottom:.0001pt;=0A= font-size:10.0pt;=0A= font-family:"Courier New"}=0A= span.HTMLPreformattedChar=0A= {font-family:Consolas}=0A= p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote=0A= {margin-top:0in;=0A= margin-right:0in;=0A= margin-bottom:0in;=0A= margin-left:1.0pt;=0A= margin-bottom:.0001pt;=0A= font-size:12.0pt;=0A= font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}=0A= p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault=0A= {margin:0in;=0A= margin-bottom:.0001pt;=0A= font-size:10.0pt;=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= span.EmailStyle25=0A= {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;=0A= color:#1F497D}=0A= .MsoChpDefault=0A= {font-size:10.0pt}=0A= @page WordSection1=0A= {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}=0A= -->=0A= </style><style id=3D"owaParaStyle" type=3D"text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin= -bottom:0;}</style> </head> <body ocsi=3D"0" fpstyle=3D"1" lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple= "> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: = 12pt;">Hi Alex,<br> <br> OK, I think I see what you're saying... that we could look at this from a &= quot;WCAG-SC-first" perspective instead of an "ATAG-SC-first"= ; perspective for those 13 SCs that refer to WCAG.<br> <br> And I agree that some SCs would potentially be harder for tools to manage t= han others, especially by powerful tools that support/encourage authors to = produce complex interfaces. <br> <br> But while theoretically, an SC like WCAG 1.3.1 could get really hairy, in t= he context of a relatively simple, but mainstream tool (e.g. TinyMCE, CKedi= t), relatively few WCAG2 1.3.1 techniques actually kick-in. As a result, I = think we can say ATAG is implementable even if it would be much more work for a much more complex tool (but I thi= nk it's fair to say that lots of things are much more complex for a much mo= re complex tool - e.g. QA, security, performance, etc.).<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Jan<br> <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"divRpF727595"><font color=3D"#000000" = face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"><b>From:</b> Alex Li (LCA) [[email protected]]<= br> <b>Sent:</b> April-17-15 1:03 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Richards, Jan; Alastair Campbell<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria<br> </font><br> </div> <div></div> <div> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Alastair,</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Several WCAG 2.0 SC are going to pr= esent more challenge for web authoring apps in fulfilling A.1.1.1. Th= at includes 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.2 when it comes to auto update, 2.2.5, 2.4.5, 3.2.5, and 4.1.2.</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a name=3D"_MailEndCompose"><span style=3D"font-size= :11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> <= /span></a></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Also B.3.1.1 is another challenge, = even with manual checking. There are so many ways to create content t= hat breaks WCAG 2.0 SC that it is no small task to meet B.3.1.1 even at level A.</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Jan, we are not looking for a perfe= ct authoring tool. We are looking examples where at least two authori= ng tools can meet a given SC. In your case of page title below, all you need is to find two authoring tools with templates th= at come with page titles, not two authoring tools that meet every WCAG 2.0 = SC.</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">All best,</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Alex</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0i= n 0in 0in"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:&quo= t;Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt= ; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Richards, Jan [mailto:jricha= [email protected]] <br> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 17, 2015 6:26 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Alastair Campbell; Alex Li (LCA)<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria</span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"> </p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"Tahoma",sans-s= erif; color:black">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</span></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"Tahoma",sans-s= erif; color:black"> </span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <pre id=3D"body"><span style=3D"color:black">(MR) JAN RICHARDS</span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">PROJECT MANAGER</span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)</s= pan></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">OCAD UNIVERSITY</span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">T 416 977 6000 x3957</span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">F 416 977 9844</span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">E </span><a href=3D"mailto:jrichards@ocadu= .ca?Subject=3DRe%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28= Boston%20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-R= eply-To=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.o= cad.ca%3E&References=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40= ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><span s= tyle=3D"color:black"></span></pre> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-align:center" align=3D"center"><span= style=3D"color:black"> <hr align=3D"center" size=3D"3" width=3D"100%"> </span></div> <div id=3D"divRpF667555"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style=3D"fon= t-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black">From= :</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma"= ,sans-serif; color:black"> Alastair Campbell [[email protected]]<br> <b>Sent:</b> April-17-15 5:06 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Alex Li (LCA)<br> <b>Cc:</b> Richards, Jan; </span><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targe= t=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma"= ;,sans-serif">[email protected]</span></a><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; = font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black"><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria</span><span= style=3D"color:black"></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:black">Hi Alex</span><span style=3D"color:bl= ack"></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"C= alibri",sans-serif; color:black">You wrote:</span><span style=3D"color= :black"></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-fam= ily:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">"<i>WCAG 2.0 has al= ready been tested for implementability. But that was only for web pag= es not authoring tools.</i>"</span><span style=3D"color:black"></span>= </p> </div> </div> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">I=92m trying to think wh= ere that would apply differently. The WCAG SC in ATAG apply to web based in= terfaces and web output.</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Just thinking through a = few examples:</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">- A.1.1.1 is basically a= WCAG check of the authoring interface, that should apply to any web page/a= pp and isn=92t unique to authoring tools.</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">- B.1.1.1 Content auto-g= eneration after authoring session: it is easy not to generate different (in= accessible) content after the authoring session.</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">- B.1.2.1 Restructuring = and Recoding Transformations: Is a WCAG check of content output.</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">- B.2.3.1 Alternati= ve Content is Editable: Is non-text content only, so isn=92t that many SC f= rom WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward WCAG check that isn=92t parti= cular to authoring tools.</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">- B.2.4.1 Accessibl= e Template Options: Nothing unique to authoring tools here=85</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">For a web-based authorin= g tool (like Defacto/Drupal) the distinction isn=92t very meaningful, the i= nterface and the output are synonymous.</span></p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Can you think of any exa= mples where the authoring tools aspect makes it unique or harder for author= ing tools?</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Kind regards,</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Alastair</span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt; font-fam= ily:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span><span style= =3D"color:black"></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB01C6D41C8Aocadmailmaild_--