W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

Authoring Tool Giudelines Working Group

Last Call issues for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

skip navbar | Minority opinions | Issues raised in last call (in guideline order) | Editorial comments

Status of this document

This document lists the issues raised during the last call review of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, from 3 Septmeber 1999 to 4 October 1999 and their resolution by the Working Group. It also records minority opinions where the Working Group was not able to reach a complete consensus.

Resolutions which were not unanimous

For some issues the working group did not achieve unanimous agreement. Working Group members agreed to record their opinions and request the director move the document to Proposed Recommendation.

Guideline 7(Ensure that the authoring tool is accessible to authors with disabilities)

Three Working Group members felt that Guideline 7 should be the first guideline in the document rather than the last:

Checkpoint 1.3 (Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [[WAI-WEBCONTENT]].)

One Working Group member felt that Checkpoint 1.4 should not be Relative Priority for all templates - for some it should be Priority 2:

Checkpoint 4.3 (Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems)

One Working Group member and one commenting developer felt that Checkpoint 5.2 should never be higher than Priority 2:

Checkpoint 5.2 (Ensure that [[WAI-WEBCONTENT]] Priority 1 accessible authoring practices are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author)

Two Working Group members felt that Checkpoint 5.2 should be Priority 1, instead of Priority 2:

Checkpoint 6.2 (Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples)

One Working Group member felt this should be Priority 1, instead of Priority 2:

Checkpoint 7.3 (Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion) and

Checkpoint 7.4 (Ensure the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible fashion) and

Checkpoint 7.5 (Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion) and

Checkpoint 7.6 (Allow the author to search within editing views)

One Working Group member felt these checkpoints are redundant with checkpoint 7.1 (Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions) and need not be included:

Issues raised During Last Call

(Please note that some issues are raised directly, and others are raised by an author on behalf of a third party or parties. Where known the person who first raised the issue has been listed, otherwise the person who sent the email to the list.)

Issues for each checkpoint:

Guideline 1

Should there be a checkpoint requiring document order to match intended presenation order?

Raised by Len Kasday.

This issue has already been resolved by the group (July 28 meeting)

Resolution: No This is covered by Web Content Guidelines, and therefore by Checkpoint 1.2.

Checkpoint 1.2

Is it OK for the author to be able to produce non-conforming markup?

Raised by Jim Thatcher.

This issue has in fact been resolved by the group already, although editorial clarification may be required. A related issue is that 4.3 effectively requires that the user is the final arbiter of what kind of code is produced.

Resoution: Yes This is implicitly allowed.

Checkpoint 1.4

Does this contradict 4.3?

Raised by Eric Hansen

Resolution: No (cross-references added to clarify.)

Checkpoints 2.2 and 2.3

who determines "accessibility" on non-W3C languages?

Raised by Phill Jenkins

Resolution: Checkpoints rewritten

Checkpoint 2.3

Is this really Priority 1?

Raised by Wendy Chisholm

Resolution: Checkpoint rewwritten

Guideline 3 or 5

Can approaches used by WYSIWYG tools be highlighted in the checkpoints?

Raised by Jon Gunderson.

Resolution: No This is techniques information

Checkpoint 3.2 (3.3 in new draft)

Should this be priority 1?

Raised by Eric Hansen

Resolution: Yes

Checkpoint 3.3

Should it only apply to multimedia objects?

Raised by Jon Gunderson

Resolution: Yes Note also checkpoint 1.3. Techniques suggested to be incorporated for 1.4

Checkpoint 3.4

Should it require that all accessibility information can be edited?

Raised by Jon Gunderson

Resolution: No This is already covered by checkpoint 7.4

Guideline 4

Can this be solved by using online services (and is that better than things built into the tools)?

Raised by WAI-ER

Resolution: Yes This should be addressed in techniques.

Should there be a requirement for particular views?

Raised by Len Kasday. (This issue has previously been resolved by the working group.)

Resolution: No This can be a technique, but not a requirement

Checkpoint 4.1

Does this checkpoint require checking at a particular point in the process?

Raised by Jim Thatcher. Also raised by Loretta Reid

Resolution: No See also the introduction to the guideline

How does this apply to things that cannot be automatically checked?

Raised by Jim Thatcher

Resolution: The tool need only check what is machine-checkable, and rely on author interaction for the rest Clarify wording, add note.

Checkpoint 4.2

What should be done about things which cannot be done automatically? (Resolved as above)

Is this really priority 1?

Raised by Jim Thatcher

Resolved with recorded dissent: This Checkpoint has relative priority

Checkpoint 4.3

This seems to be inconsistent with checkpoints 2.1, 2.2, 1.2.

Raised by Jim Thatcher. See also issue for 1.2

Resolution: Reworded and cross-referenced

Guideline 5

Should any of this be priority 1?

Raised by Phill Jenkins

Resolved with recorded dissent: 5.2 changed to priority 2

Checkpoint 5.1

Should it be priority 1?

Raised by Ian Jacobs

Resolution: 5.1 changed to priority 2.

Checkpoint 6.3

Should it be priority 1?

Raised by Phill Jenkins

Resolution: Re-arrangement of checkpoints and priorities in Guideline 6

Guideline 7

Should keyboard accessibility be a checkpoint requirement?

Raised by Jon Gunderson and

Should accessible documentation be a checkpoint requirement?

Raised by Gregory Rosmaita. Also raised by Janina Sajka and

Should there be a checkpoint related to orientation within the document?

Raised by Jon Gunderson

Resolution for these three issues: No These are covered already by Checkpoint 7.1, should be made clear in the techniques

Checkpoint 7.1

What priority applies to conventions and guidelines which are not prioritised?

Raised by Wendy Chisholm, and by Jon Gunderson

Resolution: Further advice on comapring guideines to prioritise them to be added to techniques

Checkpoints 7.3 and 7.4

Do these need to be separate checkpoints?

Raised by Phill Jenkins.

This issue has been discussed before, and it was decided to make these separate checkpoints (4 August 1999 meeting)

Resolution: Combine the checkpoints

Miscellaneous issues:

Should there be a guideline to separate form and content?

Raised by Jon Gunderson. This has been raised previously by Jason White.

Resolution: New Checkpoint 3.2 added, information added to techniques.

Should there be subclasses of conformance (other than by priority of checkpoints)?

Raised by Jon Gunderson

Resolution: No

Editorial comments and congratulations

There were a number of responses which contained suggestions for editorial amendments or clarifications. (Where substantive issues were also raised they are addressed above)

A number of suggestions for techniques were also received and discussed by the working group, and we got a couple of "good work" messages too.

Copyright  ©  1998 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.

Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:11:50 $ by Charles McCathieNevile