Changes to note:

- "included vs. excluded" terminology dropped in favour of the longer but more clear: "provides support for the production of accessible content vs. does not provide support for the production of accessible content"

- dropped Note on conformance claims - the info is repeated in the Conformance Claims section

- editorial changes to the 2nd paragraph of the intent

- new intent text: "The choice of which technologies to provide accessible content production support for is left completely to the developer (e.g., a developer might decide to begin by adding support to a less-popular technology because a major customer has requested it"

- new para for explaining the intent of (a)

- new intent text: "The list may be a partial or complete list of the technologies for which support for the production of accessible content is provided."

New wording for the SC

B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing for which the authoring tool *does not provide support for the production of accessible content*, then both of the following are true (Level A):

(a) Warning: authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content for that web content technology.

(b) List Included Technologies: from the warning, authors can access a list of technologies for which the authoring tool does *provide support for the production of accessible content*.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to inform authors as early as possible about the degree to which the authoring tool will be able to provide accessible web content production support for the web content technologies that it is capable of producing. If accessibility is part of early decision-making, it will reduce the likelihood that retrofits for accessibility will be required later on.

The success criterion makes no judgment or assumption about the accessibility of web content technologies. Instead, it is assumed that any technology can be made accessible if used properly. For example, a technology with no intrinsic accessibility features can be made accessible in conjunction with another technology (e.g., bitmap images may be made more accessible via HTML text labels).

Instead, the success criterion depends on whether the authoring tool in question actually supports the production of accessible content in the technology through features such as checking and repair or does not. The choice of which technologies to provide accessible content production support for is left completely to the developer (e.g., a developer might decide to begin by adding support to a less-popular technology because a major customer has requested it).

The wording "provides the option of producing" is intended to rule out situations in which authors make technology choices without guidance by the authoring tool (e.g., by hand coding, by specifying a DTD).

The wording "for publishing" is intended to rule out situations in which incomplete content is created in interim formats that are not intended for publishing.

The intent of (a) is that there be a warning before authors have progressed too far with a technology option lacking support for the production of accessible content in the authoring tool. The warning may appear before authors make a selection or after.

The intent of (b) is simply to inform the user, who has now just received a warning that the authoring tool lacks accessibility support for a given technology, that one or more other web content technologies produced by the authoring tool are supported by such accessibility support features. The list may be a partial or complete list of the technologies for which support for the production of accessible content is provided. In either case, it is left to authors, to decide whether any of the listed technologies might be appropriate for the task or whether they will continue on with their original selection.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:

Choosing video formats:

A video authoring tool allows authors to save into several video file formats. However, the authoring tool includes a built-in closed-caption editor that only works with one of the file formats. While there is nothing intrinsically "inaccessible" about any of these three video formats, when the option to save is presented, the formats that are not supported by the authoring tool's own closed-caption editor include warnings that caption support is not provided. In the warning's explanation, the video format that is supported by the closed-caption editor is identified.

Summary

Details