W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Comment Review - Level AA Comments

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-05-02 to 2011-05-24.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. A.3.1 - MS39
  2. A.3.1 - MS40
  3. A.3.1 - GL23
  4. A.3.1 - IBM23
  5. A.3.1 - IBM24
  6. A.3.5 - WCAGWG24
  7. A.3.5 - MS41
  8. A.3.5 - GL4
  9. A.3.5 - OC7
  10. A.3.5 - IBM30
  11. A.3.5 - IBM31
  12. A.3.6 - UAAG5
  13. A.3.6 - MS42
  14. A.3.6 - MS43
  15. A.3.6 - MS44
  16. A.3.6 - IBM32
  17. A.3.6 - IBM23
  18. A.4.1 - GL17
  19. A.4.1 - GL36
  20. A.4.2 - MS45
  21. A.4.2 - IBM37
  22. B.1.2 - WCAGWG25
  23. B.1.2 - WCAGWG26
  24. B.1.2 - MS46
  25. B.1.2 - MS47
  26. B.1.2 - MS48
  27. B.1.2 - IBM41
  28. B.1.2 - IBM43
  29. B.1.3 -
  30. B.2.2 - MS49
  31. B.2.2 - GL28
  32. B.2.2 - GL29
  33. B.2.2 - OC23
  34. B.2.2 - IBM53
  35. B.2.2 - IBM54
  36. B.2.4 - MS50
  37. B.2.4 - GL30
  38. B.2.4 - OC26
  39. B.2.5 - GG7
  40. B.2.5 - UAWG6
  41. B.2.5 - MS51
  42. B.2.5 - MS52
  43. B.2.5 - MS53
  44. B.2.5 - MS54
  45. B.2.5 - MS55
  46. B.2.5 - MS56
  47. B.2.5 - GL41
  48. B.3.2 - WCAGWG27
  49. B.3.2 - MS57
  50. B.3.2 - MS58
  51. B.3.2 - GL19
  52. B.3.2 - OC31
  53. B.3.4 - MS59

1. A.3.1 - MS39

Guideline

A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

Success Criteria

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.

Comment

MS39: A.3.1.3 Does a web-based authoring tool need to add short cut keys? That seems rather unnecessary and arbitrary. The value of short cut key is contextual. This proposal is too sweeping. Remove this success criterion.

AUWG Response

AUWG: No (e.g., it could just have skip nav links etc.). This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 2
Concern (see comment) 5

Details

Responder A.3.1 - MS39A.3.1 - MS39 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) What if the interface only has a handful of form fields? Do we expect anything would be more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation? Skip links just give user one more thing to tab to in such cases.
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) Reworded for clarity: AUWG: This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
Alessandro Miele Concern (see comment) I agree with AUWG response. Just it could be more understandable to add at the end of the SC the sentence in the brakets: "(e.g. it could just have skip nav links etc.)
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) I'm not sure what this means. It's very vague and leaves open many way to pass the criterion. Seems like an advisory.
Frederick Boland Concern (see comment) objective determinability/testability of "more efficient" than..? Is "keyboard access" sufficiently clarified/defined? I didn't notice a definition in latest ATAG2.0 draft..
Roberto Scano No Comment

2. A.3.1 - MS40

Guideline

A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

Success Criteria

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.

Comment

MS40: Does it meet the success criterion if only two shortcuts are provided since there is no specification? In that case, it would be hard to find any product that would fail this success criterion (file save and quit application are almost always supported)—making this criterion meaningless. Remove this success criterion.

AUWG Response

AUWG: No (e.g., it could just have skip nav links etc.). This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder A.3.1 - MS40A.3.1 - MS40 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) keyboard shortcuts are generally used to speed up operations (copy, paste, formatting, submit, save, print, close, etc.) Here you are talking about navigation, which is a different animal. Is the success criteria about efficiency in general or only about navigation, which is one aspect of efficiency?
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
The commenter's point remains however because a single shortcut would by definition be more efficient than no shortcuts. But the group decided more prescriptive wording would not be appropriate and the spirit of the success criterion is clear.
Alessandro Miele No Comment See MS39 Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

3. A.3.1 - GL23

Guideline

A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

Success Criteria

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.

Comment

GL23. MEDIUM: Keyboard shortcuts requirement is subjective. Re "A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided. (Level AA)" How many keyboard shortcuts? For which functions? I understand the need to be general, but because it is so general it does not seem objectively measurable, despite intention stated in "Understanding Levels of Conformance".

AUWG Response

AUWG: No (e.g., it could just have skip nav links etc.). This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder A.3.1 - GL23A.3.1 - MS40 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) See MS40
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: This requirement has been clarified as follows (removing language that appeared to imply accesskeys per se were required): A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
Alessandro Miele No Comment See MS39 Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

4. A.3.1 - IBM23

Guideline

A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

Success Criteria

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.

Comment

IBM23: A.3.1.3 Keyboard shortcuts: This is an advisory, not a requirement, in WCAG 2.0 because it's just not testable in a useful way. As worded, you would technically pass this SC if you have at least two keyboard shortcuts but whether you have actually provided enough keyboard shortcuts to make something usable is highly subjective or requires extensive user testing. This will be a source of controversy with regards to compliance so it should mirror WCAG 2.0 and have this be an advisory technique for meeting A.3.1.1.

AUWG Response

AUWG: No (e.g., it could just have skip nav links etc.). This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 2

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

Details

Responder A.3.1 - IBM23A.3.1 - IBM23 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) See MS40
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: This requirement has been clarified as follows (removing language that appeared to imply accesskeys per se were required): A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
Alessandro Miele No Comment See MS39 Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

5. A.3.1 - IBM24

Guideline

A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

Success Criteria

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.

Comment

IBM24: A.3.1.3., A.3.1.5 The techniques refer to all mobile devices having keyboard shortcuts. Is that accurate? Appears to be desktop centric, and not supportive current mobile devices.

AUWG Response

AUWG: No (e.g., it could just have skip nav links etc.). This requirement has been clarified as follows: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 3

Details

Responder A.3.1 - IBM24A.3.1 - IBM24 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) This answer does not address the mobile device issue and needs a separate answer.
Alex Li Concern (see comment) I don't think the comment was addressed. There needs to be a condition statement in the SC.

Need to insert condition statement in almost all SC, not just several SC.
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: This requirement has been clarified as follows (removing language that appeared to imply accesskeys per se were required): A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
Alessandro Miele No Comment See MS39 Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

6. A.3.5 - WCAGWG24

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

WCAGWG24: A.3.5.1 (b): To avoid confusion with bi-directional text, consider changing the short name of this item to "Two-way."

AUWG Response

AUWG: This change has been made. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 7
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder A.3.5 - WCAGWG24A.3.5 - WCAGWG24 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

7. A.3.5 - MS41

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

MS41: A.3.5.1 In many cases, this is carried out by the browser or the OS instead of the authoring tool. Does that mean the browsers and OS would be required as part of the conformance? Please explain how reliance on browser and OS are to be handled.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Yes, the browser or OS would be involved. For example, in a wiki an authoring view might occur within a text area. I can use my browser's Edit>Find feature to search for terms inside that text area. If I choose to make conformance claim, the browser I tested with is a Required Component of the claim. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.5 - MS41A.3.5 - MS41 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) Browsers are NOT authoring tools. There should be a pre-condition that the authoring tool must includes its own web content rendering interface that renders text for this SC to apply. Otherwise, this is essentially an UAAG SC.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

8. A.3.5 - GL4

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

GL4. HIGH: UAAG requirements for text search. "A.3.5.1 Text Search" lacks two search features required by UAAG: (1) "4.6.3 Match Found: When there is a match, the user is alerted and the viewport moves so that the matched text content is at least partially within it. The user can search for the next instance of the text from the location of the match." (2) "4.6.4 Alert on No Match: The user is notified when there is no match or after the last match in content (i.e., prior to starting the search over from the beginning of content). (Level A)"

AUWG Response

AUWG: Alert on no match has been added to A.3.5.1 as "(d) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found." [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder A.3.5 - GL4A.3.5 - GL4 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) This comments reafirms my comment per MS41. Leave it to UAAG to handle this.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) Good comment. What about the other situation - when there is a match? Is there no prescribed behavior?
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

9. A.3.5 - OC7

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

OC7: -A.3.5 – It is not clear that this is specifically an accessibility requirement. Furthermore, it is not clear how one could implement this in practice, for example if the target of the search may be rendered in multiple user interfaces including modal dialogs. Lastly, ‘text that the authoring tool can modify' is too broad, because some of that text may only be available at ‘runtime', in which case it would be the responsibility of the user agent to account for this feature. We recommend that this guideline be made advisory

AUWG Response

AUWG: While all users benefit, people who have difficulty using the keyboard benefit more. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.5 - OC7A.3.5 - OC7 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) I don't think we are answering the question here. The commenter is trying to say that the operation of text search can only be done at runtime for web applications. We should calify that the SC only applies to output of the authoring tool and only applies if the authoring tool has its own rendering interface. Otherwise, this SC is really the concern of the user agent, not authoring tool.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

10. A.3.5 - IBM30

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

IBM30: A.3.5.1: the sub-bullets don't need "and" at the end of each one. And is implied by the wording of the parent provision because it doesn't say "one of the following"

AUWG Response

AUWG: This is the WCAG 2.0 style. See IBM18. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.5 - IBM30A.3.5 - IBM30 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) This is the WCAG 2.0 style in some places (2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide).
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

11. A.3.5 - IBM31

Guideline

A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.

Success Criteria

* A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows:
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.
(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

Comment

IBM31: A.3.5.1 Most browsers support text search and type ahead capability. Would this satisfy the checkpoint? If so, why is it not in the implementation section? Why do you confine searches to the editing view in this situation? Have you spoken to UAAG about requiring the feature of text searching. This would remove the burden from the author for web content.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Browser features can be used (see MS41). Even if it were added to UAAG, it might not be implemented so it should stay in for now. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.5 - IBM31A.3.5 - IBM31 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) Since this is 99.9% the responsibility of user agent, it is best that we leave it to UAAG.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

12. A.3.6 - UAAG5

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings. Note: As per Success Criterion A.2.3.1, the author's display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited.

Comment

UAWG5: A.3.6.2: Broaden this to any settings that impact accessibility? If these definitions of "display settings" and "control settings" seem broad enough to possibly include all input or output preference settings;, it would be nice if one didn't have to take the links to the glossary to figure that out, and it's still somewhat ambiguous: would it include the option to hide or show alternative text? Also, an example of preference settings beyond display and control settings that still affect accessibility would be the option to turn on and off AT compatibility modes such as support for platform accessibility API.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Broadened to: A.3.6.2 Save Settings: Authoring tool display settings and control settings can be saved between authoring sessions. (Level AA) [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.6 - UAAG5A.3.6 - UAAG5 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) The appropriate SC is now A.3.6.3, not A.3.6.2.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

13. A.3.6 - MS42

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

A.3.6.1 Save Settings: The authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between sessions.

Comment

MS42: A.3.6.1 There is some inconsistency here from A.3.1.4 where customization is set at AAA, but saving such setting is AA. Please consider moving this SC to AAA to maintain consistency.

AUWG Response

AUWG: A.3.6.1 applies to more than just keystrokes. e.g., that I had set my default editing zoom to 150%. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.6 - MS42A.3.6 - MS42 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) Please specify that there is a pre-condition in which this only applies if the tool has unique display and control settings.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

14. A.3.6 - MS43

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

A.3.6.1 Save Settings: The authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between sessions.

Comment

MS43: A.3.6.1 Change “…are saved…” to “…can be saved…”. The current wording implies that the tool will do so without user control. Please change wording as suggested.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Agree to change. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 7
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder A.3.6 - MS43A.3.6 - MS42 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

15. A.3.6 - MS44

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings. Note: As per Success Criterion A.2.3.1, the author's display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited.

Comment

MS44: A.3.6.2 Please define "respects" or use more precise language. Please define "respects" or use more precise language

AUWG Response

AUWG: "Respect" has been changed to "apply"(new numbering is A.3.6.3). [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.6 - MS44A.3.6 - MS44 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) Need to see the new wording. As stated here, it wouldn't be grammatical, and I'm not sure it makes sense.
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

16. A.3.6 - IBM32

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

A.3.6.1 Save Settings: The authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between sessions.

Comment

IBM32: A.3.6.1 Saving authoring tool display and keyboard settings. This seems onerous if you are doing rich web applications. It means you need to have some sort of RESTful service to stash this information. Local Data Storage does not show up until HTML 5 for the web. I am not aware of a web email clients (rich text editing capability) that supports this today.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Most web applications with long-term users save any settings that they allow to be changed. e.g. if a theme is set, it is still in use when the user logs back in. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.6 - IBM32A.3.6 - IBM32 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) I agree that this is asking a lot out of simple web sites. Look at this suvey, for example.

Also, plese specify precondition that the SC only applies if the tool contains it own settings and that what is saved is its own setting, not the setting of a different product, such as that of the OS.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

17. A.3.6 - IBM23

Guideline

A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.

Success Criteria

# A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings.
Note: As per Success Criterion A.2.3.1, the author's display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited.

Comment

BM23: A.3.6.2 Web pages do not have access to keyboard control settings so what happens when you have a web page that acts like an authoring tool? At best you could implement best practices for a given platform but if customization goes on you are out of luck. Browsers have security walls put up to prevent you from asking OS specific information. Is there a plan to address this issue?

AUWG Response

AUWG: A web application could allow the author to specify accesskeys. The success criterion simply requires that if the authoring tool allows the user to set a setting then that setting value should be saved for the next session. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.3.6 - IBM23A.3.6 - IBM23 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) See above.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

18. A.4.1 - GL17

Guideline

A.4.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes.

Success Criteria

A.4.1.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent "undo" action(s).

Comment

GL17. MEDIUM: Level conflict between Undo and Undo Reversible. "A.4.1.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent 'undo' action(s). (Level AA)" seems to conflict slightly with A.4.1.1 because the latter requires at Level A that all operations that change content be subject to an "undo" operation, while the former says that providing "undo" for an "undo" operation that changed content is only Level AA. You could fix this by explicitly exempting undo from the undo requirement, or by changing the level of the redo requirement, etc.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This requirement has been combined with the main udo requirement with the addition of this note ("Note 1: Reversing actions (e.g. an "undo" function) are also considered authoring actions, meaning they must also meet this success criterion (e.g., a "redo" function). ").[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.4.1 - GL17A.4.1 - GL17 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) udo=>undo
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

19. A.4.1 - GL36

Guideline

A.4.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes.

Success Criteria

A.4.1.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent "undo" action(s).

Comment

GL36. MINOR: AT also introduces errors. In "Implementing Guideline A.4.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid and correct mistakes", the rationale could include not only people who have difficulty with fine motor control, but also those who rely on assistive technologies such as speech recognition, which introduce errors through misrecognition.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This is a good addition. @@ADD

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder A.4.1 - GL36A.4.1 - GL17 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) Did this get added?
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment AUWG: This wording has been added.
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) What's the exact addition?
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

20. A.4.2 - MS45

Guideline

A.4.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.

Success Criteria

A.4.2.2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented.

Comment

MS45: A.4.2.2 “All features” is too encompassing. Hidden features are common place. Besides, how is non-documented features affecting people with disabilities any more than those without disabilities. This SC is not at all related to accessibility. Please remove A.4.2.2

AUWG Response

AUWG: We mean features the user can use. This is a AA requirement for people with cognitive disabilities, people who have difficulty exploring UIs, etc. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder A.4.2 - MS45A.4.2 - MS45 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) How is it possible to demonstrate that this SC is met? Take Outlook, for example, how do you know if we've documented every single feature?

If there are features such as "God mode" that we don't want people to know, why would that impact PWD any differently? That was our original question.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) I don't see how this has been addressed. There's been no clarification in the wording.
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

21. A.4.2 - IBM37

Guideline

A.4.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.

Success Criteria

A.4.2.2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented.

Comment

IBM37: A.4.2.2 Does this require statements of UAAG conformance?

AUWG Response

AUWG: We do not understand this comment. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder A.4.2 - IBM37A.4.2 - IBM37 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) Can we get a clarification from Sueann? Or we could state that we are not requiring UAAG conformance for documentation and put that in the intent somewhere.
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

22. B.1.2 - WCAGWG25

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true:
(a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information; or
(b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
(c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool.

Comment

WCAGWG25: B.1.2.4(a) "Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information;" This is confusing. The non-accessible part of web content that is associated with the accessibility information should not be deleted.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 7
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder B.1.2 - WCAGWG25B.1.2 - WCAGWG25 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

23. B.1.2 - WCAGWG26

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true:
(a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information; or
(b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
(c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool.

Comment

WCAGWG26: B.1.2.4(b) "Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion;" Add "and are warned that this may result in web content accessibility problems in the output"

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment) 1

Details

Responder B.1.2 - WCAGWG26B.1.2 - WCAGWG26 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) was the phrase added that WCAG requested?
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

24. B.1.2 - MS46

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.

Comment

MS46: B.1.2.3 We suspect there is an error here where the accessibility information should be up to WCAG 2.0 Level AA, not AAA. There should also be a similar SC for AAA. Please change the SC language from “…WCAG 2.0 Level AAA…” to “…WCAG 2.0 Level AA…” Add a new SC to cover AAA

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized (with this multi-level comment worked in). See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 7
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder B.1.2 - MS46B.1.2 - MS46 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

25. B.1.2 - MS47

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.

Comment

MS47: B.1.2 How does this apply to something like a copy and paste operation from a rich text editor to a plain text editor where structural info will be lost? Who is supposed to tell the author that the structure is gone? Please explain how the SC applies to copy-and-paste or cut-and-paste operations?

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 2

Details

Responder B.1.2 - MS47B.1.2 - MS47 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) I don't see how WCAGWG15 resolves this.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) Given that we are a long way from WCAGWG15 in this questionnaire, it would have been helpful to have had this new wording pulled into here so that we didn't have to go hunt for it.
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

26. B.1.2 - MS48

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true:
(a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information; or
(b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
(c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool.

Comment

WCAGWG25: B.1.2.4(a) "Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information;" This is confusing. The non-accessible part of web content that is associated with the accessibility information should not be deleted.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 1

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

Details

Responder B.1.2 - MS48B.1.2 - MS48 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Alex Li Concern (see comment) Not sure if this is for WCAGWG25 or MS48. If it is MS48, my question still stands. But I can leave it till implementation. Be ready for not able to find any implementation of the conditions.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

27. B.1.2 - IBM41

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.

Comment

IBM41: B.1.2.3 - Why is the AA requirement to preserve accessibility information up to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA? It should only be up to Level AA. If Level AAA is required, there should be another provision.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.2 - IBM41B.1.2 - IBM41 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

28. B.1.2 - IBM43

Guideline

B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.

Success Criteria

B.1.2.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.

Comment

IBM43: B.1.2.4 Most if not all information is accessibility information. If I export a file to PDF are you going to interrupt the user ever time it runs into an unsupported feature in the target document format? This seems unrealistic. For example, text is important to accessibility as is alt text. I think accessibility information needs expansion for that reason. Also what about labels and live region support - any accessibility property.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The preservation requirements have been reorganized. See WCAGWG15. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 1

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

Details

Responder B.1.2 - IBM43B.1.2 - IBM43 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) Has this been addressed? Especially labels and live region support.
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

29. B.1.3 -

Guideline

B.1.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible

Success Criteria

* B.1.3.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that web content conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level AA prior to publishing.
Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.g., authors might set less strict preferences, ignore prompts for accessibility information, provide faulty accessibility information, write their own automated scripts, etc.).

Comment

JR: Should be B.1.3.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level AA)

AUWG Response

AUWG: Re-organized instead. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.3 - B.1.3 - Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) Reorganized how? Where?
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

30. B.2.2 - MS49

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., low-level check results, high-level conformance claims, etc.)

Comment

MS49: B.2.2.7 This SC belongs to AAA. Move SC to AAA.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The WG has decided that this is AA. The metadata might be as simple as a single WCAG conformance level value. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment) 1

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

Details

Responder B.2.2 - MS49 B.2.2 - MS49 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) This SC is problematic. There is no definition for metadata. Having an "option of associating..." means that there needs to be another option of "not assciating...", which does not make sense. If the objective is to make the association, why does it matter if metadata is used or not?

This is a AAA SC.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

31. B.2.2 - GL28

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc.

Comment

GL28. MEDIUM: Clarify minimum requirements for Status Report. "Implementing Success Criterion B.2.2.6 Status Report" again could better clarify the minimum requirements for conforming. For example, if the user chooses a menu command to check the document and it provides a dialog box listing the errors and potential errors, but provides no way to save or print that information, does that still count as a "report"? What if the dialog box only shows one error or potential error, and the user has to press a "Next" button to display each successive point?

AUWG Response

AUWG: Your point is taken, but at some point we can't control bad UI design. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.2.2 - GL28B.2.2 - GL28 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

32. B.2.2 - GL29

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., low-level check results, high-level conformance claims, etc.)

Comment

GL29. MEDIUM: Clarify minimum requirements for Metadata Production. "Implementing Success Criterion B.2.2.7 Metadata Production" could clarify whether saying the results must be stored "with the web content as metadata" means it must be stored in the file (e.g. as markup in the HTML document) or whether it can be separate (e.g. in the tool's database or in separate report files). If the latter, then it's hard to see how it differs from the requirement to make a report of test results available, other than that this might require it to be machine-readable and parsable using a documented format, instead of only human-readable text.

AUWG Response

AUWG: As you say, metadata is machine readable and parsable, whether or not it is human readable. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.2.2 - GL29B.2.2 - GL29 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

33. B.2.2 - OC23

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., low-level check results, high-level conformance claims, etc.)

Comment

OC23: -B.2.2.7 – We recommend making this Level AAA.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The WG has decided that this is AA. The metadata might be as simple as a single WCAG conformance level value. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 3
Concern (see comment) 1

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.2 - OC23B.2.2 - OC23 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) There are at least three comments here that the AA level should be changed to AAA or that metadata is subjective. Seems that it needs to be discussed again.
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

34. B.2.2 - IBM53

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc.

Comment

IBM53: B.2.2.6 Difficult to have a web email client or a wiki provide a status report on accessibility of dynamic content. There is value, but this is a significant requirement, should be AAA and configurable.

AUWG Response

AUWG: If the checker can perform the check, it does not seem too difficult to produce some form of report. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.2 - IBM53B.2.2 - IBM53 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

35. B.2.2 - IBM54

Guideline

B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

Success Criteria

B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., low-level check results, high-level conformance claims, etc.)

Comment

IBM54: B.2.2.7 Need more concrete examples of using metadata here. Metadata is very abstract.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This requirement is intended to be open to a variety of implementations. The main point is to encourage the use of metadata, of any kind, to store and convey checking results. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 3
Concern (see comment) 1

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.2 - IBM54B.2.2 - IBM54 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) Most standards that specify metadata use recommend or require specific metadata that needs to be stored/used. Why would ATAG be different?
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

36. B.2.4 - MS50

Guideline

B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.

Success Criteria

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.

Comment

MS50: B.2.4.4 This SC seems extraneous. If text alternative can be accessed, then obviously it can be reused. If nothing, at least delete “for future reuse.” since it represents future event which is unverifiable at the time of conformance claim. Consider deleting the SC or at least delete “for future use.”

AUWG Response

AUWG: Reworded for clarity: B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) (a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and (b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4 - MS50B.2.4 - MS50 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) When you say "automatically saved and suggested", do you mean that there should be an automatic file saving operation? If not, exactly what is being "saved"? If so, I think this is against most people's expectation of when file save should occur.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

37. B.2.4 - GL30

Guideline

B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.

Success Criteria

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.

Comment

GL30. MEDIUM: Clarify minimum requirements for Save for Reuse. "B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse. (Level AA)" does not make it clear whether the content strings need to be associated with the original content (e.g. with the image), or that the user should be able to delete obsolete or erroneous entries to keep the list from becoming unwieldy. I worry that a simple way of complying is just to have a single, ever-growing list of previously used strings that can quickly change from useful to detrimental (like Thunderbird's list of recipients), so even if the minimum is left vague, I recommend at least providing some guidance or best practices.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Reworded for clarity: B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) (a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and (b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4 - GL30B.2.4 - GL30 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

38. B.2.4 - OC26

Guideline

B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.

Success Criteria

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.

Comment

OC26: -B.2.4.4 – We recommend making this Level AAA as this is applies equally to non- accessibility related content and moves into a product usability feature.

AUWG Response

AUWG: it has been moved to AAA. See response for MS50. Reworded for clarity: B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) (a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and (b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4 - OC26B.2.4 - GL30 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

39. B.2.5 - GG7

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

Comment

GG7: B2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content: Also see B2.5.8 below - Who decides on the accessibility status of pre-authored content, which may be user provided. In note (a) the words "Indicate" and "if known" provides a loophole that would allow tools to ignore this guideline. If none of the pre-authored content is reviewed for accessibility, developers can pass this requirement by omitting the accessibility status.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This is now B.2.5.1. The accessibility might be determined by a checking mechanism and recorded with metadata. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 3
Concern (see comment) 1

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - GG7B.2.5 - GG7 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) "might" and arbitrary metadata don't help accessibility.
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

40. B.2.5 - UAWG6

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

UAWG6: B.2.5.4: The definition for prominence says in part: For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if: both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes); if item B is emphasized, then so is item A; so if the accessible option is at the bottom of a menu separated from the less accessible option by 10 entires, this is acceptable? If the list has 25 items and the user must scroll to see the accessible option, is this then acceptable? Off the topic somewhat, but the question of whether accessible options should be displayed as prominently as, and/or in proximity to, their inaccessible counterparts applies to more things than just templates (for example, a list of schemes).

AUWG Response

AUWG: It is not perfect, but it is very difficult to get more prescriptive about the order within a container because the order is dependent on so many factors. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - UAWG6B.2.5 - UAWG6 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

41. B.2.5 - MS51

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

MS51: B.2.5.4 If all templates are equally accessible, why would this be necessary or beneficial? There seems to be an assumption here that the templates are not all of similar accessibility status. Revise the SC

AUWG Response

AUWG: User created templates could be less accessible and require this feature to distinguish them. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS51B.2.5 - MS51 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) How can a tool be held responsible for user generated template? You are asking tool to make differentiation. There needs to be pre-condition that differentiation exist in order for this SC to apply.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

42. B.2.5 - MS52

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

MS52: B.2.5.4 Please provide examples of how one goes about indicating the accessibility status of a template. How much detail is needed? Please provide instruction of the level of detail required to indicate template accessibility status.

AUWG Response

AUWG: There are multiple ways this might be achieved. Two possibilities are mentioned in the examples (e.g. accessibility status as a sortable field, WCAG 2.0 conformance level included in its name). Checking is also mentioned, in which case the metadata produced when meeting "B.3.1.5 Metadata Production" might be used. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS52B.2.5 - MS52 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

43. B.2.5 - MS53

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

MS53: B.2.5.4 What happens when there is a large variety of template of all different sorts? The language suggests that the “accessible” option must take precedence regardless of other logical grouping. Please change the SC to account for other logical grouping of templates.

AUWG Response

AUWG: At least as prominent is not the same as taking precedence. @@ADD note to prominence on logical groupings.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS53B.2.5 - MS53 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

44. B.2.5 - MS54

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

MS54: B.2.5.4 The term “…accessible template options” implies that there is a distinction of “accessible template” and “non-accessible” template. How does one go about making such distinction? Without an exact definition, this SC is not testable. Please provide a structured way to indicate accessibility status of templates and how to go about showing prominence of template of various (or equal) status.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This issue has been moved to a new defined term: Accessible template, which is defined as:
Templates that the author or authoring tool can use to create web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at a particular level (Level A, AA or AAA) under both of the following conditions:
- Authors correctly follow the minimum instructions associated with the template, including providing complete and correct information when requested (e.g., by responding to prompts, replacing highlighted placeholders, etc.); and
- No further authoring occurs (e.g., a "blank" document template would be assessed only on the basis of the resulting blank web content)[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS54B.2.5 - MS54 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) What is "minimum instructions"?
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

45. B.2.5 - MS55

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism, they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates.

Comment

MS55: B.2.5.5 This SC assumes that author is given freedom to create templates with different degree of accessibility. The assumption is not always valid. Please address the scenario in which author has no freedom to change accessibility of a template.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Agreed, but in cases where the result is always accessible, this would seem to simplify the task of labeling it as such. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 3
Concern (see comment) 2

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS55B.2.5 - MS55 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) Tools should not be wasting screen real estate to label everything as "accessible" when that is the case. Add pre-condition that only if there is a differentiation when this SC apply.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment)
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

46. B.2.5 - MS56

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

Comment

MS56: B.2.5.6 All comments from 2.5.4 apply equally. Please reference comments from B.2.5.4

AUWG Response

AUWG: See responses above.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment)

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS56B.2.5 - MS56 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

47. B.2.5 - GL41

Guideline

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.

Success Criteria

B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

Comment

GL41. MINOR: Indicators during template selection. Re "B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism", would you really recommend listing entries like "slide show template - wcagA"? If you want to recommend something, wouldn't "slide show template (WCAG A)" be more acceptable to users and software designers? The examples might also be more acceptable to designers and developers if you show their mainstream uses, such as also showing which templates are available in multiple languages, whether they're suitable for small screens, etc.

AUWG Response

AUWG: @@update

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 2
Concern (see comment) 2

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5 - GL41B.2.5 - GL41 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Concern (see comment) This does not appear to be addressed.
Alex Li
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: Agreed. Reworded as: Accessibility status included in template names/descriptions: In a wiki system, creating a new page brings up a list of available templates. Each template is only displayed as a name and a short description. When the developer has ensured the accessibility of a template, this is indicated by the template name (e.g. "slide show template (accessible)") and/or information in the description ("This template meets WCAG 2.0 Level A as provided and should result in an accessible page, if accessible authoring practices are followed.").
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

48. B.3.2 - WCAGWG27

Guideline

B.3.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.

Success Criteria

B.3.2.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems.

Comment

WCAGWG27: B.3.2.3 Deactivation Warning: Consider promoting this SC to Level A.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Moved to AA. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 3
Concern (see comment)

(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.2 - WCAGWG27B.3.2 - WCAGWG27 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

49. B.3.2 - MS57

Guideline

B.3.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.

Success Criteria

B.3.2.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).

Comment

MS57: B.3.2.4 “Comparable” is not testable. Please revise SC.

AUWG Response

AUWG: We believe comparable is legitimate given the examples listed: B.4.1.4 Feature Prominence: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g. invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors)[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.2 - MS57B.3.2 - MS57 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) The comment is that comparable is not testable--ie if you ask multiple people what's comparable you get multiple answers. The comment did not say that it is not legitimate.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

50. B.3.2 - MS58

Guideline

B.3.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.

Success Criteria

B.3.2.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).

Comment

MS58: B.3.2.4 “Other types of web content problems” has no definition and, thus, there is no way to determine if the SC is met. Please replace “other types of web content problems” with something more precise.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This wording is clarified sufficiently by the examples ("(e.g. invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors)"). [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.2 - MS58B.3.2 - MS58 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) As with comparable, "other types of web content problems" is untestable because there will always be people thinking something else as another type of "web content problem". Substantial revision needed.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

51. B.3.2 - GL19

Guideline

B.3.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.

Success Criteria

B.3.2.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).

Comment

GL19. MEDIUM: User should be allowed to override B.3.2.4 At Least As Prominent. Re "B.3.2.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)" is an example of a success criterion that should acknowledge that this refers to the default user interface, but that the user can be allowed to override these defaults.

AUWG Response

AUWG: The Developer control Conformance Applicability Note covers this.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.2 - GL19B.3.2 - GL19 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

52. B.3.2 - OC31

Guideline

B.3.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.

Success Criteria

B.3.2.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).

Comment

OC31: -B3.2.4 – Because there are a variety of prominence levels for the examples given it will be very subjective which to choose. How we would highlight markup is very different from a spelling issue. This makes the item very subjective and hard to test.

AUWG Response

AUWG: We agree that it is difficult to test, but most people would agree that a spell checker that underlines words in text has a much higher prominence than an accessibility utility that is activated from a third-level menu item.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.2 - OC31B.3.2 - OC31 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Concern (see comment) This SC has very substantial problem with testability.
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

53. B.3.4 - MS59

Guideline

B.3.4 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.

Success Criteria

B.3.4.2 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AA): A range of examples in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.0 Level AA accessible authoring practices.

Comment

MS59: B.3.4.1 What counts as a range? Two or more? Please remove “A range of” from the SC

AUWG Response

AUWG: Yes two or more is the minimum. But the term range was selected because it also indicates that the spirit of the requirement is to provide more than that. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 4
Concern (see comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.3.4 - MS59A.3.1 - MS59 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm Concern (see comment) If you mean "two or more", please say "two or more".
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

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. Andrew Ronksley <andrew.ronksley@rnib.org.uk>
  4. Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
  5. Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
  6. Alexandre Morgaut <alexandre.morgaut@4d.com>
  7. Jean-Bernard Piot <jean-bernard.piot@4d.com>
  8. 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)