w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
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:
- A.2.2 - GL2
- A.3.2 - WCAGWG28
- A.3.6 - OC8
- B.1.3 - WCAGWG29
- B.2.5 - GG8
- B.2.5 - MS60
- B.2.5 - IBM57
- 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 6 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | A.2.2 - GL2 | A.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | A.3.2 - WCAGWG28 | A.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 6 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | A.3.6 - OC8 | A.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) | 1 |
Details
| Responder | B.1.3 - WCAGWG29 | B.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | B.2.5 - GG8 | B.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | B.2.5 - MS60 | B.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | B.2.5 - IBM57 | B.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| No Comment | 5 |
| Concern (see comment) |
Details
| Responder | B.3.3 - GL20 | B.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
- Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 4, May 2011 at 22:06 (UTC)
- Jan Richards: last responded on 6, May 2011 at 16:15 (UTC)
- Alessandro Miele: last responded on 9, May 2011 at 09:06 (UTC)
- Cherie Ekholm: last responded on 9, May 2011 at 19:06 (UTC)
- Frederick Boland: last responded on 9, May 2011 at 20:40 (UTC)
- Roberto Scano: last responded on 16, May 2011 at 12:23 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project