See also: IRC log
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
- B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA)
Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
@ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for production", not that the production of the other format needs to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak) possibility is [the...
scribe: test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible. Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html)
JR, AL: Discuss the issue...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html
<jeanne> Definitions for testing ->http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/TestPrep.html
JS: Has added the definition into the page above.
B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA)
Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
@ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for production", not that the production of the other format needs to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak) possibility is [the...
scribe: test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible. Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.
JT: Primary point of SC is to
guide author...we've tried many formulations
... Wonder how we can keep the spirit of this
... Maybe we look at this in the other direction...recommending
the technology that has support.
AL: I think the testability issue is still there
JT: In what way?
AL: Really hard to say when a tool provides support for production of accessible support
JT: If the recommendation is that
there be an indicator that accessible production is
supported....
... So the guidance doesn't nee to ba certification...just
having some indicator that some...
JR: What about only triggering it only if the default technology is not the included technology
AL: In most cases accesssibility will depend. One tech might be better in one way, one tech might be better for something else
GP: Often times the authoring
tool won't even create the final technology...
... So important to have properly created target technology
JR: Not about the format
... example of spell checking in only one format, but not
others
GP: In most situations there it is not the case that one or the other
JT: If it is the case that there is no difference, then it shouldn't apply
GP: Example of ePub...needs
reader
... In most tools, validity is limited to native format
JT: Can validate DAISY with MS Word
JR: What are some scenarios that should trigger sc?
JT: Example of video with captions, about to transfom to a video format without captions
JR: Should be covered by our content transformation SC
GP: Sound authoring in the
source, should result in greater accessibility in the
target
... Contemporary tools take you 80% of the way...because they
automatically use styles etc
JT: Step back again to look at spirit...at decision points...where one choice would likely reduce accessibility
GP: For example, if you are going to use this feature or place this object, you need to know x. But sometimes its just good auhtoring practice.
<jeanne> when authoring tools provide different technologies, the user is supported toward the more accessible choice as measured by the task the user wants to perform.
JR: But still complicated...what if you format includes some checking...but not repair etc.
GP: Microsoft has 8 simple
checkpoints for making docs accessible
... Afraid that this is a documentation requirement...that will
cause a backlash
... Its getting much more complex than the actual tools that
will be produced as we try to account for all
possibilities.
JS: when authoring tools provide different technologies, the user is supported toward the more accessible choice as measured by the task the user wants to perform.
<jeanne> as measured by the actions the author takes
JR: I do have concern that user will experience the SC as a judgement against the format (not as we intend honesty about the authoring tools own functionality)
B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG):
If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
(a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the output; or
(b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that accessibility information (WCAG) may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector graphic into a raster image format); or
(c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
(d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
GP: We are moving to multiple formats
JT: Idea of merging issue SC with B.1.2.1
<scribe> ACTION: JR to suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG) [on Jan Richards - due 2012-07-30].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/RR/JR/ Succeeded: s/CuoBian.inc// Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Greg, Alex, Jutta, [Microsoft] Present: Alex Cherie Greg Jan Jeanne Jutta Regrets: Sueann N. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html Got date from IRC log name: 23 Jul 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]