W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Comment Review - Level AAA Comments

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-05-03 to 2011-05-24.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. A.2.2 - GL2
  2. A.3.2 - WCAGWG28
  3. A.3.6 - OC8
  4. B.1.3 - WCAGWG29
  5. B.2.5 - GG8
  6. B.2.5 - MS60
  7. B.2.5 - IBM57
  8. B.3.3 - GL20

1. A.2.2 - GL2

Guideline

A.2.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Editing view presentation can be programmatically determined

Success Criteria

A.2.2.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): If an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) renders any presentation properties for text, then those properties can be programmatically determined.

Comment

GL2. HIGH: Note misleading about scope of A.2.2.3: ATAG's "Implementing Success Criterion A.2.2.3" has a note that is misleading as it seems to limit the scope of the SC to only properties that can be edited by the authoring tool, whereas the SC clearly applies to all properties that are rendered whether they can be edited or not. The SC says "If an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) RENDERS any presentation properties for text, then those properties can be programmatically determined." Whereas the note says "See Implementing Success Criterion A.2.2.2, substituting all text presentation properties that are BOTH RENDERED AND EDITABLE by the authoring tool for the four presentation properties listed in A.2.2.2." (emphasis added)

AUWG Response

AUWG: Combined into: "A.2.2.2 Access to Rendered Text Properties: If a text property is both rendered and editable and the property can be communicated by the supported platform accessibility service, then the property is programmatically determinable. (Level A)" [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder A.2.2 - GL2A.2.2 - GL2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

2. A.3.2 - WCAGWG28

Guideline

A.3.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide authors with enough time.

Success Criteria

A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to save all content edits made by authors.

Comment

WCAGWG28: A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): Suggest revising this SC to include "automatically" (The authoring tool can be set to [automatically] save all content edits made by authors.)

AUWG Response

AUWG: Change made.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder A.3.2 - WCAGWG28A.2.2 - WCAGWG28 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

3. A.3.6 - OC8

Guideline

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

Success Criteria

A.3.6.3 Multiple Sets: Authors can save and reload multiple sets of any authoring tool display settings and control settings.

Comment

OC8: -A.3.6.3 – Regarding loading multiple sets, we question why this is an accessibility issue. We recommend removing it.

AUWG Response

AUWG: Some users are aided by the ability to have multiple sets of preferences (e.g., because their vision or motor control fatigues easily). [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 6
Concern (see comment)

Details

Responder A.3.6 - OC8A.3.6 - OC8 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

4. B.1.3 - WCAGWG29

Guideline

B.1.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.

Success Criteria

* B.1.3.3 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that web content conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA 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

WCAGWG29: Should be: B.1.3.3 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level AAA)

AUWG Response

AUWG: Re-organized. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

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

Details

Responder B.1.3 - WCAGWG29B.1.3 - WCAGWG29 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards Concern (see comment) AUWG: Yes and this is is now addressed.
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland No Comment
Roberto Scano No Comment

5. B.2.5 - GG8

Guideline

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

Success Criteria

B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status.

Comment

GG8: B2.5.8 Pre-Authored content in a repository is generally user provided, as opposed to developer provided. Should there be a distinction here between what the system provides, and what is provided by others? Perhaps distinguished in a way similar to the incompleteness of templates in the note for B.2.5.9. A definition of "pre-authored-content", might also be provided here, distinguishing it from templates.

AUWG Response

AUWG: This has been addressed by the addition of this Applicabaility Note: "Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. by plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings, etc.)."[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.2.5 - GG8B.2.5 - GG8 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

6. B.2.5 - MS60

Guideline

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

Success Criteria

B.2.5.7 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status.

Comment

MS60: B.2.5.7 Most comments from 2.5.4 apply here. Please reference comments from B.2.5.4

AUWG Response

AUWG: Please see responses to: MS51, MS52, MS53, and MS54. [ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.2.5 - MS60B.2.5 - MS60 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

7. B.2.5 - IBM57

Guideline

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

Success Criteria

B.2.5.9 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA when used. Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.

Comment

IBM57: B.2.5.9 For content such clip art it may be inaccessible. The author should be able to provide the alt text to make it accessible. So, the source template may not comply but it could be fixed. I don't know that you would have to always require that the template be WCAG 2.0 compliant to start.

AUWG Response

AUWG: At AAA a template should include Alt in clip art it uses.[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.2.5 - IBM57B.2.5 - IBM57 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
Frederick Boland
Roberto Scano No Comment

8. B.3.3 - GL20

Guideline

B.3.3 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented.

Success Criteria

B.3.3.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on an accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided.

Comment

GL20. MEDIUM: Identify accessibility features in documentation. B.3.3 requires that features that support the production of accessible content be documented, but I would suggest adding (either as a best practice or as a new SC) that the user should be able to find a list or index of such features. This would be equivalent to UAAG 2.0's "5.3.4 Centralized View: There is a centralized view of all features of the user agent that benefit accessibility, in a dedicated section of the documentation. (Level AA)" However, in ATAG this should apply to both accessible content support features and to features that make the tool's user interface accessible.

AUWG Response

AUWG: We have added a centralized index of documentation at AAA. Proposal: "B.3.2.3 Instruction Index: The documentation contains an index to the instructions for using the accessible content support features. (AAA)"[ADDRESSED]

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No Comment 5
Concern (see comment)

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

Details

Responder B.3.3 - GL20B.3.3 - GL20 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman No Comment
Jan Richards No Comment
Alessandro Miele No Comment
Cherie Ekholm No Comment
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. Alex Li <alli@microsoft.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 1.124 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)