W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 14 February

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-02-11 to 2011-02-21.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Proposal to remove B.2.1.1
  2. Proposal on document convention: WCAG
  3. New note under "Specialized Tools":
  4. Move "Live Authoring Tools" note
  5. Definition of authors
  6. Definition of authoring tool
  7. Definition of Content Generation
  8. Definition of Content Being Edited
  9. Definition of View

1. Proposal to remove B.2.1.1

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder Proposal to remove B.2.1.1 Comments on B.2.1.1
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Generally agree.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Alastair and I are still discussing this on the list
Alastair Campbell Recommend changes (see comments field) I'm not convinced that it is wise to remove even a low bar. A possibly separate issue is that we need a check that tools allow/encourage the use of structural markup when appropriate. Proposal coming soon...

2. Proposal on document convention: WCAG

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 8
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Proposal on document convention: WCAGComments Proposal on document convention: WCAG
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Why is this an issue?
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

3. New note under "Specialized Tools":

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder New note under "Specialized Tools":Comments on B.2.3.1:
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal Regarding the word "interesting" I think that could be replaced by another one. Maybe the sentence could be "A special case are accessibility checkers", or a "particular case"...
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) Perhaps add a note indicating that an authoring tool used in conjunction with such an accessibility checker can be considered ... well I don't know what it could be considered, but encouraging such a combination gets people to think about the workflow they may employ.
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) There should be other cases when certain tool can only do very specialize functions. Should we excluding them all or are should we apply ATAG narrowly to make it work for narrow products? What is the philosophy and criteria? This is an important decision, because if we are to exclude applicability of ATAG to products that do not fully apply to all SCs, then we likely exclude a lot of products.

This is very much part of the scope issue which is my primary concern with ATAG.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal I think this hits the main point: ATAG applies to tools that create web content. Such a tool can include a checker, but a 'pure' checker does not constitute an authoring tool.

4. Move "Live Authoring Tools" note

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder Move "Live Authoring Tools" noteComments on Move "Live Authoring Tools" note
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

5. Definition of authors

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 2
Recommend changes (see comments field) 3
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 4
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder Definition of authorsComments on Definition of authors
Alessandro Miele Recommend changes (see comments field) I think that it could be easier to understand if said:
[...]
(a) must have *author permission* to edit the web content; and
[...]
Jutta Treviranus The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Regarding Note 1: part of the intent of ATAG is to ensure that when users are not aware that they are making authoring decisions, the tool ensures that it is accessible. Note 1 goes counter to this.
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) I like the definition, do we compare and contrast with dynamically generated content? Who is the "author" in a content management system or an aggregator that produces content based upon criteria set forth by an individual.
Cherie Ekholm The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) I find the second bullet point confuses the issue. It makes more sense if you remove "As part of the definition of "authoring tool". In this context," and just continue with the rest of the sentence. There's nothing here that makes it sound like the author is part of the authoring tool, and the definition of authoring tool doesn't help even with the new wording.
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) A person who send a photo from a mobile phone or an internet-connected camera is an author, by this definition...does not seem right.
Frederick Boland The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) needs more clarification..?
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Recommend changes (see comments field) Cheating slightly and reading other's answers:
- I agree with Jutta, if you are creating web content you are an author.
- If someone uploads a picture from their mobile, yes, they are creating web content, that seems right to me. There is a chain of authoring rather than pointing the finger at one tool, but the original picture taker is effectively an author. There may be others in the chain, but if that interface doesn't provide a mechanism for applying alt text and it gets immediately published, it probably shouldn't claim ATAG compliance...

6. Definition of authoring tool

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 3
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder Definition of authoring toolComments on Definition of authoring tool
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) - in the e-commerce case what if the person processing the order has a disability, also of course, what if the person filling out the form has a disability? What is the motivation for excluding this? The form should both be accessible and create accessible content in my opinion.
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal Here you compared and contrasted the way I suggest in the previous survey question
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) How does "collection of software components" work? How do we know when the collection is complete? Does it have to be complete? If the collection contains products where a given SC is met by some but not all of the software, what happens?

We are excluding simple text editors and accessibility checker, but why not other products that do not fully apply? What is the criteria? We are addressing this via example, but there is no criteria to determine such "exception" apply to other products.

In the end, there are too many software that we cannot objectively determine if it is an "authoring tool". My usual objection.
Frederick Boland The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) needs more wordsmithing..?
Jan Richards Accept the proposal I could also see Note 4 being placed as Note 1 since it adds new normative info, while current Notes 1-3 simply clarify.
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal Regarding "How do we know when the collection is complete?" - does it matter?
The check would be of the resultant web content. If there is an issue with the web content, it has to be tracked back to where that aspect was created.
I'm not sure the use-case of e-commerce form needs an exception. The form to collect it should be accessible, and the content is produces should be accessible if displayed on a web page. It will generally be short-snippets of plain text, is there a more complex example which would cause difficulty?

7. Definition of Content Generation

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 8
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Definition of Content GenerationComments on Definition of authoring tool
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

8. Definition of Content Being Edited

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

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

Details

Responder Definition of Content Being EditedComments on Definition of Content Being Edited
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Recommend changes (see comments field) The *web content* that an *authoring tool* enables an *author* to modify during an *authoring session*....[the rest unchanged]
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal (With Jan's update in the comment)

9. Definition of View

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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder Definition of ViewComments on Definition of View
Alessandro Miele Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Jutta Treviranus Recommend changes (see comments field) Source-views may also show the content to be rendered.
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  2. Roberto Scano <w3c-rep@iwanet.org>
  3. Jeanne F Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
  4. Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
  5. Alexandre Morgaut <alexandre.morgaut@4d.com>
  6. Jean-Bernard Piot <jean-bernard.piot@4d.com>
  7. Tom Babinszki <tbabins@us.ibm.com>

Send an email to all the non-responders.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Completed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.123 2013-09-26 09:46:56 dom Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to dom@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)