W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 7 March 2011

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-03-03 to 2011-03-15.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Definition of author
  2. Definition of authoring tool
  3. Wording of B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions

1. Definition of author

Definition of author

Proposed edit to definition of authors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0053.html

"author"

People who use authoring tools to create or modify web content. The term may cover roles such as content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. (see also "Part B Conformance Applicability Note #6: Multiple author roles"). Some authoring tools control who may be an author by managing *author permissions*.

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

Details

Responder Definition of authorComments on Definition of authors
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal

2. Definition of authoring tool

Definition of authoring tool

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0053.html

"Authoring Tool"

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

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

* Note 2: "alone or collaboratively": Multiple authors may contribute to the creation of web content and, depending on the authoring tool, each author may work with different views of the content and different editing permissions.

* Note 3: "to create or modify web content": This clause rules out software that collects data from a person for other purposes (e.g., online grocery order form) and then creates web content from that data (e.g., a web-based warehouse order) without informing the person (however, WCAG 2.0 would still apply). This clause also rules out software used to create content exclusively in non-web content technologies.

* Note 4: "for use by other people": This clause rules out the many web applications that allow people to modify web content that only they themselves experience (e.g., web-based email display settings) or that only provide input to automated processes (e.g., library catalog search page).

* Examples of software that are generally considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0:
- web page authoring tools (e.g. WYSIWYG HTML editors)
- software for directly editing source code
- 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 considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):
- customizable personal portals: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the web content being edited is only available to the owner of the portal - e-commerce order forms: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the purpose of an e-commerce order form is to order a product, not communicate with other people via web content, even if the data collected by the form actually does result in web content (e.g., online tracking pages, etc.)
- stand-alone accessibility checkers: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because a stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair functionality does not actually modify web content. An accessibility checker with repair functionality or that is considered as part of a larger authoring process would be considered an authoring tool.

====================

Things to shift to a "More Information about the Definition of Authoring Tools" section in "Implementing ATAG 2.0"

- Simple text editors: If a text editor provides no support for the production of any particular web content technology (e.g., no syntax checking, markup insertion, etc.) then ATAG 2.0 "Partial" Conformance (to Part A) is suggested.

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

Details

Responder Definition of authoring toolComments on Definition of authoring tool
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal

3. Wording of B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions

Wording of B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG)

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110228/

@@B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is true:

Summary

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

Details

Responder Wording of B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring SessionsComments on Definition of Content Being Edited
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) What are the options? Which of the following?
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocadu.ca>
  2. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  3. Roberto Scano <w3c-rep@iwanet.org>
  4. Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
  5. Cherie Ekholm <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com>
  6. 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 1.124 2014-10-06 13:46:23 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)