W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Requirements for ATAG "Wombat"

Status of this document

This document represents the requirements that the working group has identified for a new version of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, currently known by the name "Wombat". These requirements are developed on the basis of implementation experience with ATAG 1.0 and feedack from developers and other users of that document.

This document has been reviewed and agreed to by the Working group. It is not endorsed by W3C or its members, and should not be cited except as a "work in progress".

This document is a record of the current requirements that the Working group feels an updated version of the Authoring Tool Accessiblity Guidelines should meet. It is expected that this document will be updated in response to further implementation experience with ATAG 1.0 from time to time.

This document was last updated $Date: 2001/11/21 04:48:55 $

Requirements for ATAG "Wombat"

  1. The nature of the requirement for prompting was a subject of ongoing debate. It is necessary to clarify whether a tool has to interrupt workflow at any point in order to conform to checkpoints requiring prompting, and the defininition given in the errata for ATAG 1.0 should be incorporated.
  2. There are some unnecessary redundancies in ATAG 1.0 checkpoints, where an evaluation of two different checkpoints requires the same test. This should be eliminated.
  3. The draft must be ready to incorporate WCAG 2.0 as soon as that is a Recommendation. This is a big requirement. Essentially that means the group must develop techniques for WCAG 2.0 and get a new version of ATAG through Candidate Recommendation as fast as possible, and part of that involves ironing out any bugs in ATAG 1.0. Note however that it is not a requirement that the next version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines incorporate WCAG 2.0. If the group feels that it would be beneficial to produce an updated Recommendation before WCAG 2.0 is a recommendation that should still be possible.
  4. It should be clear in the draft which relative priority chekpoints apply to all WCAG checkpoints, and which only apply to some of them, especially with regard to ATAG 1.0 checkpoints 3.1 and 3.2
  5. It must be clear in the draft what level of implementation is required functionality to conform to a checkpoint, and what is merely suggested or is optional further functionality.
  6. Each checkpoint in the draft should include a rationale for why it is included in the requirements.

Copyright 2001 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document useand software licensingrules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.