DRAFT - 11 March 2013
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Charter
The mission of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG), part of the WAI Technical Activity, is to produce guidelines for the development of authoring tools that are both accessible to authors and also enable all authors to create content that is accessible to end users. In particular, the AUWG will publish the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) as a W3C Recommendation. This mission is complementary to the work of other Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) groups within the WAI Technical Activity and the WAI International Program Office Activity.
| End date | 30 June 2016 |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Proceedings are Public. Some communications between editors and/or during implementation testing period may be member-confidential. |
| Initial Chairs | Jutta Treviranus |
| Initial Team Contacts (FTE %: 35) |
Jeanne Spellman |
| Usual Meeting Schedule | Teleconferences: Every week Face-to-face: 1-2 per year |
Scope
The AUWG's scope of work includes:
- Continue the process of developing ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation
- Update Implementing ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Note
- Develop tests to support the evaluation of ATAG 2.0 implementations
- Document implementation testing experience of ATAG 2.0
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups for dependencies with the requirements of ATAG 2.0
- Contribute input where appropriate towards requirements for WAI 3.0 Guidelines.
Consistent with W3C Process requirements on Task Forces, the AUWG may form task forces composed of AUWG participants or join other W3C task forces to carry out assignments when under the chartered scope of AUWG. Any such task force must have a work statement (including objectives, communication, participation, and leadership) that has been announced on the AUWG mailing list, approved by the AUWG, and is available from the AUWG home page. AUWG task forces should produce requirements documents that outline the scope and expectations for work. Task forces may set up separate teleconferences and hold face-to-face meetings per the W3C process and with the approval of the AUWG.
Success Criteria
- Implementations of ATAG 2.0 during Candidate Recommendation.
- Publication of ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation.
- Publication of Implementing ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Note.
- Publication of Testing Materials to support ATAG 2.0 conformance.
Deliverables
W3C Technical Reports
- Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, to be published as a W3C Recommendation.
- Implementing ATAG 2.0, to be published as a W3C Working Group Note.
Other Deliverables
- ATAG 2.0 Testing Materials, to help assess ATAG 2.0 conformance.
- Other minor supporting documents for ATAG 2.0, e.g. FAQ, as required.
Milestones
| Note: The group will document significant changes from this initial schedule on the group home page. | |||||
| Specification | FPWD | LC | CR | PR | Rec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATAG 2.0 | March 2003 | June 2010, April 2012 | April 2013 | June 2014 | September 2014 |
Timeline View Summary
- Q2 2013:
- Candidate Recommendation of ATAG 2.0
- Candidate Recommendation of Implementing ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Note
- Publish ATAG 2.0 testing materials
- Collect and evaluate implementations of ATAG 2.0
- Work with ATAG 2.0 implementers to address interoperability issues
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups
- Q3 2013 to Q4 2013
- Collect and evaluate implementations of ATAG 2.0
- Work with ATAG 2.0 implementers to address interoperability issues
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups
- Q1 2014
- Collect and evaluate implementations of ATAG 2.0
- Work with ATAG 2.0 implementers to address interoperability issues
- Prepare ATAG 2.0 Implementation Report
- Prepare testimonials, announcements and promotional materials
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups
- Q2 2014:
- Prepare ATAG 2.0 Implementation Report
- Publish Proposed Recommendation Working Draft of ATAG 2.0
- Prepare testimonials, announcements and promotional materials
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups
- Q3 2014:
- ATAG 2.0 becomes W3C Recommendation
- Implementing ATAG 2.0 becomes Working Group Note
- Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups
- Q4 2014 - Q2 2016:
- Support implementation of ATAG 2.0
- Support best practices and promotion of ATAG 2.0
- Process any public comments on ATAG 2.0
- Publish Errata document if necessary
- Expand Implementing ATAG 2.0
- Contribute requirements from ATAG for future versions of ATAG and other WAI Guidelines
Dependencies
W3C Groups
- (WAI) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WG: The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines rely on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to set out best practices for the content to be authored and also for implementing Web-based user interfaces.
- (WAI) User Agent Accessibility Guidelines WG: The two groups coordinate on common approaches to user interface accessibility;
Furthermore, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group expects to follow these W3C Recommendations:
Participation
To be successful, AUWG is expected to have 6 or more active participants for its duration, with participation where possible including representation from industry, disability communities, accessibility research and government. Effective participation in AUWG is expected to consume 6 hours per week for each participant; two days per week for editors.
Participants are reminded of the Good Standing requirements of the W3C Process.
Communication
This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing list w3c-wai-au@w3.org (archive). The public mailing list public-atag2-comments@w3.org (archive) is used for public feedback.
Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group home page.
Decision Policy
As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.
- When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group meeting, and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters may vote on a proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair will decide the outcome of the proposal.
- This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the W3C Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires.
Patent Policy
This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (5 February 2004 Version). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis.
For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation.
About this Charter
This charter for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has been created according to section 6.2 of the Process Document. In the event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.
The AUWG was first chartered in December 1997. The AUWG was rechartered in February 1999, January 2000, June 2001, September 2004 and August 2010.
Please also see the previous charter for this group.
Jutta Treviranus, Chair
Jeanne Spellman, Staff Contact
Copyright© 2010 W3C ® (MIT , ERCIM , Keio), All Rights Reserved.
$Date: 2013/03/22 16:08:35 $