RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria
"Alex Li (LCA)" <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:20:30 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.tools |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BN3PR0301MB120388EE013216C15E94E60AC9E30@BN3PR0301MB1203.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> |
--_000_BN3PR0301MB120388EE013216C15E94E60AC9E30BN3PR0301MB1203_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jan, you lost me with "WCAG-SC-first" v. "ATAG-SC-first" process. I'm only= taking an approach to test whether ATAG can be proven implementable. If a= n ATAG SC calls for test against WCAG 2.0 SC, then we test the authoring to= ol against WCAG SC. On testing B.2.4.1, I think it only calls for implementing a collection of = templates that meet WCAG SC at various levels, not templates to cover every= SC of WCAG. From: Richards, Jan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 10:55 AM To: Alex Li (LCA); Alastair Campbell Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria BTW: One issue I can see with a "WCAG-SC-first" process would be what to do= about any WCAG SC that are typically not applicable in the context of thos= e ATAG SCs. For example, take WCAG 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)-Level A in the context = of templates (ATAG B.2.4.1). I don't think I've ever seen a template that c= ame with videos with a spoken soundtrack (I have seen templates FOR videos = e.g. [1]). I think that's because video(with speech) is a type of content t= hat authors would add, not the type that would come pre-populated. But does that mean that including captioned video in a template is fundamen= tally not implementable? I don't think so. [1]http://www.wideo.co/video-templates 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: Richards, Jan [[email protected]] Sent: April-17-15 1:36 PM To: Alex Li (LCA); Alastair Campbell Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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'm trying to think where that would apply differently. The WCAG SC in ATAG= 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't 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= 't that many SC from WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward WCAG check t= hat isn't particular to authoring tools. - B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options: Nothing unique to authoring tools he= re... For a web-based authoring tool (like Defacto/Drupal) the distinction isn'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_BN3PR0301MB120388EE013216C15E94E60AC9E30BN3PR0301MB1203_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:= //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"= > <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style><![endif]--><style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;} pre {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} span.HTMLPreformattedChar {mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted"; font-family:Consolas;} p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote {mso-style-name:emailquote; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;} p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault {mso-style-name:msochpdefault; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;} span.htmlpreformattedchar0 {mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar; font-family:Consolas;} span.emailstyle18 {mso-style-name:emailstyle18; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D;} span.emailstyle19 {mso-style-name:emailstyle19; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D;} span.emailstyle20 {mso-style-name:emailstyle20; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} span.emailstyle25 {mso-style-name:emailstyle25; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Jan, you lost me with “WCAG-SC-= first” v. “ATAG-SC-first” process. I’m only t= aking an approach to test whether ATAG can be proven implementable. I= f an ATAG SC calls for test against WCAG 2.0 SC, then we test the authoring tool agains= t WCAG SC.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">On testing B.2.4.1, I think it only c= alls for implementing a collection of templates that meet WCAG SC at variou= s levels, not templates to cover every SC of WCAG.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a name=3D"_MailEndCompose"><span style=3D"font-size= :11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbs= p;</o:p></span></a></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in = 0in 0in"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"= ;Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;= font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichard= [email protected]] <br> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 17, 2015 10:55 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Alex Li (LCA); Alastair Campbell<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria<o:p></o:p><= /span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-f= amily:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">BTW: One issue I can see w= ith a "WCAG-SC-first" process would be what to do about any WCAG = SC that are typically not applicable in the context of those ATAG SCs.<br> <br> For example, take WCAG 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)-Level A in the context = of templates (ATAG B.2.4.1). I don't think I've ever seen a template that c= ame with videos with a spoken soundtrack (I have seen templates FOR videos = e.g. [1]). I think that's because video(with speech) is a type of content that authors would add, not the ty= pe that would come pre-populated.<br> <br> But does that mean that including captioned video in a template is fundamen= tally not implementable? I don't think so.<br> <br> [1]<a href=3D"http://www.wideo.co/video-templates">http://www.wideo.co/vide= o-templates</a><br> <br> Cheers,<br> Jan<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"Tahoma",sans-s= erif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <pre id=3D"body"><span style=3D"color:black">(MR) JAN RICHARDS<o:p></o:p></= span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">PROJECT MANAGER<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)<o:= p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">OCAD UNIVERSITY<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">T 416 977 6000 x3957<o:p></o:p></span></pr= e> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">F 416 977 9844<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">E <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?Sub= ject=3DRe%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%= 20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To= =3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%= 3E&References=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmai= l-maildb.ocad.ca%3E">[email protected]</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center"><span= style=3D"color:black"> <hr size=3D"3" width=3D"100%" align=3D"center"> </span></div> <div id=3D"divRpF789722"> <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",sa= ns-serif;color:black"> Richards, Jan [[email protected]]<br> <b>Sent:</b> April-17-15 1:36 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Alex Li (LCA); Alastair Campbell<br> <b>Cc:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria</span><span= style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-f= amily:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">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<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"Tahoma",sans-s= erif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <pre id=3D"body"><span style=3D"color:black">(MR) JAN RICHARDS<o:p></o:p></= span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">PROJECT MANAGER<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)<o:= p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">OCAD UNIVERSITY<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">T 416 977 6000 x3957<o:p></o:p></span></pr= e> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">F 416 977 9844<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">E <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?Sub= ject=3DRe%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%= 20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To= =3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%= 3E&References=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmai= l-maildb.ocad.ca%3E" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><o:p></o:p></s= pan></pre> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center"><span= style=3D"color:black"> <hr size=3D"3" width=3D"100%" align=3D"center"> </span></div> <div id=3D"divRpF727595"> <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",sa= ns-serif;color:black"> 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> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria</span><span= style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alastair,</span><span style=3D"color:= black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Several WCAG 2.0 SC are going to pres= ent more challenge for web authoring apps in fulfilling A.1.1.1. That= 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><span style=3D"color= :black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Also B.3.1.1 is another challenge, ev= en with manual checking. There are so many ways to create content tha= t breaks WCAG 2.0 SC that it is no small task to meet B.3.1.1 even at level A.</span><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></sp= an></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Jan, we are not looking for a perfect= authoring tool. We are looking examples where at least two authoring= tools can meet a given SC. In your case of page title below, all you need is to find two authoring tools with templates that com= e with page titles, not two authoring tools that meet every WCAG 2.0 SC.</s= pan><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">All best,</span><span style=3D"color:= black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alex</span><span style=3D"color:black= "><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in = 0in 0in"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"= ;Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-= size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Richar= ds, Jan [<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</a= >] <br> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 17, 2015 6:26 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Alastair Campbell; Alex Li (LCA)<br> <b>Cc:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Proposal for updated ATAG 2.0 Exit Criteria</span><span= style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </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><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"Tahoma",sans-s= erif;color:black"> </span><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></spa= n></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <pre id=3D"body"><span style=3D"color:black">(MR) JAN RICHARDS<o:p></o:p></= span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">PROJECT MANAGER<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)<o:= p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">OCAD UNIVERSITY<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">T 416 977 6000 x3957<o:p></o:p></span></pr= e> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">F 416 977 9844<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <pre><span style=3D"color:black">E <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?Sub= ject=3DRe%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%= 20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To= =3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%= 3E&References=3D%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmai= l-maildb.ocad.ca%3E" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><o:p></o:p></s= pan></pre> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center"><span= style=3D"color:black"> <hr size=3D"3" width=3D"100%" align=3D"center"> </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",sa= ns-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><span style=3D"color:black"><a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;fo= nt-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">[email protected]</span></a></span= ><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"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:black">Hi Alex</span><span style=3D"color:blac= k"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:black">You wrote:</span><span style=3D"color:b= lack"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">"<i>WCAG 2.0 has already been te= sted for implementability. But that was only for web pages not author= ing tools.</i>"</span><span style=3D"color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></= p> </div> </div> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">I’m trying to thin= k where that would apply differently. The WCAG SC in ATAG apply to web base= d interfaces and web output.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Just thinking through a = few examples:<o:p></o:p></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’t unique to authoring tools.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p>= </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’t that many = SC from WCAG. But even so it is a straightforward WCAG check that isn’= ;t particular to authoring tools.<o:p></o:p></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…<o:p></o:p= ></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></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’t very meaningful, t= he interface and the output are synonymous.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p>= </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span>= </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Alastair<o:p></o:p></spa= n></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca= libri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style=3D"color:bla= ck"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_BN3PR0301MB120388EE013216C15E94E60AC9E30BN3PR0301MB1203_--