Email reference: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0037.html

Proposal to remove B.2.1.1

On the call I took an action to look at this... http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110204/results#xq3

The original spirit of the SC was:
"does the tool let accessibility-savvy users meet wcag by SOME means (e.g. a text view)"

As pointed out, this is a low bar.

The proposed rewording tried to tighten this up to basically say: "if the user can use the tool to break WCAG conformance then they can use the tool to fix it"

But in the interests of avoiding repetition, I think this is covered already, especially by:

- B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG) - there needs to be mechanisms to set accessibility properties

- B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG) - authoring tool will help find issues (even if the help is manual). And the wording is similar enough to B.2.1.1: "If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so 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 images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions)."

- B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG) - authoring tool will help repair issues (even if the help is manual)

So, I suggest we drop B.2.1.1 altogether.

See responses on the list

Summary

Details

Proposal on document convention: WCAG

2. The document convention: "Whenever success criteria or defined terms in ATAG 2.0 depend on WCAG 2.0, they are marked with '(WCAG)'."

Summary

Details

New note under "Specialized Tools":

Note: An interesting case are accessibility checkers. While accessibility checking functionality is an important part of an ATAG 2.0 conforming authoring tool, a stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair functionality is not considered an authoring tool because it is not used to edit web content for use by other people.

Summary

Details

Move "Live Authoring Tools" note

Move "Live Authoring Tools" note from the definition of authoring tools to a note in the Conformance section. Link to ED.

Summary

Details

Definition of authors

Proposed edit to definition of authors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0039.html

"authors"

ATAG 2.0 uses this term in two contexts:
- As shorthand, to denote users of authoring tools.
- As part of the definition of "authoring tool". In this context, authors are people working alone or collaboratively to create or modify web content for use by other people (i.e., other authors, end-users). To qualify as an author for a given piece of web content, a person:
(a) must have *author permission* for the web content; and
(b) must be intending to communicate with other people via the web content.

Note 1: The requirement that authors must be intending to communicate with other people rules out people as authors who are unaware that their actions are resulting in web content (e.g., people filling out application forms, people whose behaviour is being automatically recorded, etc.).

Note 2: Types of authors: The term "authors" may cover roles such as content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. (see also " Part B Conformance Applicability Note #6: Multiple author roles").

Summary

Details

Definition of authoring tool

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0039.html

"Authoring Tool"

Any software, or collection of software components, that can be used by authors to create or modify web content for use by other people (i.e., other authors, end-users).

* Note 1: "collection of software components": Multiple applications, plug-ins, etc. can be used together to meet ATAG 2.0. Also see the note in the "Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".

* Note 2: "used by authors": The software must be used by people fitting the definition of authors to qualify as an authoring tool.

* Note 3: "for use by other people (end-users)": This clause differentiates authoring tools from the many web applications that allow people to modify web content that only they themselves experience.

* Note 4: Data collection: ATAG 2.0 does not apply to software that an organization uses to gather data from end-users (e.g., application forms, e-commerce orders, web searches, etc.), even if that data is later formatted as web content for processing, storage, etc. In contrast, software that lets someone assemble web content for use by other people that draws from these data sources could be considered an authoring tool.

* Examples of software that may usefully be considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0:
- web page authoring tools (e.g. WYSIWYG HTML editors) - software for directly editing source code (except simple text editors, see below)
- software for converting to web content technologies (e.g. "Save as HTML" features in office document applications)
- integrated development environments (e.g. for web application development)
- software that generates web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or "wizard"-type processes
- software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e.g. blogging, wikis, online forums)
- software for generating/managing entire web sites (e.g. content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
- email clients that send messages in web content technologies
- multimedia authoring tools
- software for creating mobile web applications

* Examples of software that are not usefully considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0: - simple text editors: ATAG 2.0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be used to edit source, but that include no support for the production of any particular web content technology. In contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more sophisticated source editors that support the production of specific web content technologies (e.g. with syntax checking, markup prediction, etc.).
- e-commerce order forms: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the user of an e-commerce order form is not intending to communicate with other people via web content and is therefore not considered an "author", even if the data collected by the form actually does result in web content (e.g., online tracking pages, etc.).

Summary

Details

Definition of Content Generation

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0039.html

"Content Generation"

The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents (also may be referred to as "Content Authoring" or "Content Editing")...

Summary

Details

Definition of Content Being Edited

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0039.html

"Content Being Edited"

The *web content* that an *author* can modify during an *authoring session*. The web content being edited may be a complete piece of content (e.g. image, style sheet) or only part of a larger piece of web content (e.g. a status update). The content being edited only includes web content in technologies that the authoring tool supports (e.g., a WYSIWYG HTML editor allows editing of the HTML content of a webpage editable, but not the images).

Summary

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Definition of View

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0039.html

"View"

A user interface function that authors use to interact with the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing:
- editing-views: Views in which some or all of the content is editable; or
- previews: Views in which none of the content is editable. Often the purpose is to present content as it would appear in a user agent.

ATAG 2.0 also recognizes several approaches to presenting the content in a view: - source views: Only the unrendered content is presented (e.g. plain text editors); or
- rendered views; *Content renderings (conventional, unconventional or partial)* are presented; or
- property views: Only properties of the content are presented. The authoring tool then uses these properties to automatically generate the content to be published (e.g. CMS calendar widget that generates a calendar from the numeric month and year).

Summary

Details