W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 7 January 2013 - part 3 (A.4 - B.2)

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2013-01-03 to 2013-03-29.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. A.4.1.1 tests
  2. A.4.1.2 tests
  3. A.4.1.3 tests
  4. A.4.2.1 tests
  5. A.4.2.2 tests
  6. B.1.1.1 tests
  7. B.1.1.2 tests
  8. B.1.2.1 tests
  9. B.1.2.2 tests
  10. B.1.2.3 tests
  11. B.1.2.4 tests
  12. B.2.1.1 tests
  13. B.2.2.1 tests
  14. B.2.2.2 tests
  15. B.2.3.1 tests
  16. B.2.3.2 tests
  17. B.2.3.3 tests
  18. B.2.3.4 tests
  19. B.2.4.1 tests
  20. B.2.4.2 tests
  21. B.2.4.3 tests
  22. B.2.4.4 tests
  23. B.2.5.1 tests
  24. B.2.5.2 tests

1. A.4.1.1 tests

Success Criteria

A.4.1.1 Content Changes Reversible (Minimum): All authoring actions are either reversible or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: All authoring actions are either reversible or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed.

  1. Open or author sample content (e.g. accessible test content file).
  2. Decide on a number of authoring actions (e.g. typing text, inserting an object, deleting text, deleting objects, etc.)
  3. For each authoring action:
    1. Perform the authoring action.
    2. If a confirmation was required to proceed, check whether the confirmation stated that the authoring action would be irreversible. If so, then go to the next authoring action.
    3. Attempt to reverse the authoring action (e.g. via mechanisms such as "Undo" or "Cancel"). If this is not possible, then select FAIL.
    4. Go to the next authoring action (if any).
  4. Select PASS. (all of the authoring actions must have met the requirement)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder A.4.1.1 testsComments on A.4.1.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

2. A.4.1.2 tests

Success Criteria

A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation: If the authoring tool provides mechanisms for changing authoring tool user interface settings, then those mechanisms can reverse the setting changes, or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: User interface setting changes can be reversed, or require author confirmation to proceed.

Test 0001: Author: Tim Boland, Jan

  1. If there are no mechanisms to change any preference settings within that authoring tool user interface, then select SKIP.
  2. Open/install authoring tool. Note "values" of all preference settings within that authoring tool user interface.
  3. For each mechanism for changing the preference settings:
    1. Use the mechanisms to change the relevant preference settings, so that the "value" of those preference settings is different.
    2. If an OK button (or similar) is required to save the preferences, select the button.
    3. If the authoring tool prompts the user for confirmation to proceeed, then go to the next mechanism for changing the preference settings.
    4. Attempt to "reverse" the change. If the original value can be set then go to the next mechanism for changing the preference settings.
    5. Go to the next mechanism for changing the preference settings (if any).
  4. Select PASS. (all of the settings must have met the requirement)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder A.4.1.2 testsComments on A.4.1.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Recommend changes (see comments field) TYPO: within that authoring-->within the authoring
-proceeed
CHANGE TO:
1. Examine the authoring tool for mechanisms to change any preference settings within that authoring tool user interface. If there are none, then select SKIP.
2. For each mechanism for changing the preference settings:
1. Note "values" of preference settings within the mechanism.
2. Use the mechanisms to change the relevant preference settings, so that the "value" of those preference settings is different.
3. If an OK button (or similar) is required to save the preferences, select the button.
4. If the authoring tool prompts the user for confirmation to proceed, then go to the next mechanism for changing the preference settings.
5. Attempt to "reverse" the change. If the original value can be set then go to the next mechanism for changing the preference settings.
6. Otherwise, select FAIL.
3. Select PASS. (all of the settings must have met the requirement)

Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

3. A.4.1.3 tests

Success Criteria

A.4.1.3 Content Changes Reversible (Enhanced): Authors can sequentially reverse a series of reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA) Note: It is acceptable to clear the authoring action history at the end of authoring sessions.

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: A sequence of authoring actions can be reversed sequentially.

  1. Open or author sample content (e.g. accessible test content file).
  2. Decide on a number of authoring actions (e.g. typing text, inserting an object, deleting text, deleting objects, etc.)
  3. Perform all of the authoring actions in sequence (do not save, close the session, etc.)
  4. Attempt to reverse the authoring actions (e.g. via mechanisms such as "Undo" or "Cancel") one by one. If this is possible, then select PASS. Otherwise, select FAIL.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder A.4.1.3 testsComments on A.4.1.3
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

4. A.4.2.1 tests

Success Criteria

A.4.2.1 Describe Accessibility Features: For each authoring tool feature that is used to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Accessibility features are either described, part of the platform, or not used directly by authors.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Examine the user interface of the authoring tool, noting each user interface component that is necessary in order to meet part A of ATAG 2.0 (e.g. search functions).
    Note: Many of the success criteria in Part A are more qualitative and will not require particular user interface functionality (e.g. the requirement to follow WCAG 2.0). (Components are checked because they are the constituents of features)
  2. For each of these user interface components:
    1. If the user interface component is part of functionality provided by the platform (e.g. the menu bar of the browser in the case of a web-based tool), then go to the next component.
    2. If use of the user interface component is a convention of the platform (e.g. how to operate scroll-bars, standard Save and Open dialog boxes), then go to the next component.
    3. If use of the user interface component is clear from its context (e.g. a page zoom feature with percentage values in a drop-down list) , then go to the next component.
    4. If the user interface component is documented in the interface (e.g. with text next to the item, context-sensitive help), then go to the next component.
    5. Look up the user interface component (or its associated functionality) in the documentation. If documentation exists, then go to the next component.
    6. If there is no way to discover how to use the user interface component besides trial-and-error, then select FAIL.
    7. Go to the next user interface component (if any).
  3. Select PASS (all of the user interface components must meet the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder A.4.2.1 testsComments on A.4.2.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: " ,"
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

5. A.4.2.2 tests

Success Criteria

A.4.2.2 Document All Features: For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true: (Level AA)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: All features are either described, part of the platform, or not used directly by authors.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Examine the user interface of the authoring tool, noting each user interface component that accepts input is available to the author. (Components are checked because they are the constituents of features)
  2. For each of these user interface components:
    1. If the user interface component is part of functionality provided by the platform (e.g. the menu bar of the browser in the case of a web-based tool), then go to the next component.
    2. If use of the user interface component is a convention of the platform (e.g. how to operate scroll-bars, standard Save and Open dialog boxes), then go to the next component.
    3. If use of the user interface component is clear from its context (e.g. a page zoom feature with percentage values in a drop-down list), then go to the next component.
    4. If the user interface component is documented in the interface (e.g. with text next to the item, context-sensitive help), then go to the next component.
    5. Look up the user interface component (or its associated functionality) in the documentation. If documentation exists, then go to the next component.
    6. If there is no way to discover how to use the user interface component besides trial-and-error then, select FAIL.
    7. Go to the next user interface component (if any).
  3. Select PASS (all of the user interface components must meet the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder A.4.2.2 testsComments on A.4.2.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: that accepts input is-->that accepts input and is
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

6. B.1.1.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content after the end of an authoring session, authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG). (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) Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content (WCAG).

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content after the end of an authoring session, authors can specify that the content be accessible.

Test 0001: Jan

  1. This SC only applies to authoring tools that add anything to the end-user experience beyond what the author has experienced during the authoring session. Otherwise, select SKIP.
  2. The SC's note also makes it clear that the SC refers to developer-provided processes, not processes created by the author or other third-parties. If there are no relevant developer-provided process, then select SKIP.
  3. If the auto-generation system primarily works by creating a wrapper around the author's entries, try to test the auto-generation system with as little author-entered content as possible.
  4. If author input is required, ensure that only accessible content is added and that all prompts are followed correctly.
  5. If the auto-generation system acts differently depending on the author's entries, try to test the auto-generation system with the "accessible test content file"
  6. If additional author input is required, ensure that only accessible content is added and that all prompts are followed correctly.
  7. Once the system produces output, follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL) to determine if it meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria TARGET_LEVEL. If the produced output meets WCAG 2.0 at the TARGET_LEVEL, select PASS. Otherwise select FAIL.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.1.1 testsComments on B.1.1.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Recommend changes (see comments field) CHANGE: beyond what the author has experienced --> beyond what the author has specified
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

7. B.1.1.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content during an authoring session, 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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Content generated automatically during authoring sessions is either accessible or the user is prompted or checking is enabled automatically or checking is suggested.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Determing whther the authoring tools automatically adds content during the authoring session. Such processes can range from complex (e.g., a process that builds a whole page from just a few user entries - Note 1 applies here) to basic (e.g. adding a <strong> formatting tag when the user has selected to have text made "bold"). If the authoring tool does not automatically generate content, select SKIP.
  2. For each automatic authoring process:
    1. Trigger the automatic authoring process with as little author-entered content as possible (e.g. triggering the automated processes on nearly empty pages).
    2. If the produced content (not necessarily the document as a whole) passes the "Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL)", then go to the next automatic authoring process.
    3. If, during the automatic authoring process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG) and if this is properly supplied then the produced content passes the "Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL)", then go to the next automatic authoring process.
    4. If, after the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed (check-as-you-type systems that check for accessibility continuously will meet this), then go to the next automatic authoring process.
    5. If, after the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking (such prompts need not be obtrusive), then go to the next automatic authoring process.
    6. Otherwise, select FAIL.
  3. Select PASS (all of the automatic authoring processes must meet the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.1.2 testsComments on B.1.1.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: Determing whther --> Determine whether
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

8. B.1.2.1 tests

Success Criteria

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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Restructuring transformations either preserve accessibility information or the user is prompted or checking is enabled automatically or checking is suggested.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Determine which are the "included" technologies.
  2. Determine if (for these "included" technologies only) the authoring tool provides any features that involve restructuring transformation (in which the content technology stays the same, but the structural features of the technology used to markup the content are changed (e.g., linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages)) that meet the following conditions:
    • must be automatic processes (e.g. a general find-and-replace mechanism does not qualify),
    • clipboard actions (such as copy and paste), are excluded because they are adressed by B.1.2.2.
    • transformations related to text alternatives for non-text content are excluded because they are addressed by B.1.2.4.
  3. If no transformations that meet these conditions are identified, then select SKIP.
  4. For each restructuring transformation:
    1. Open the accessible test content file (TARGET_LEVEL)
    2. Invoke the transformation.
    3. If the resulting content (when published) meets the "Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL)", then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    4. If before the transformation proceeds, the author is warned that accessibility information may be lost, then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    5. If, after the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed (check-as-you-type systems that check for accessibility continuously will meet this), then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    6. If, after the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking (such prompts need not be obtrusive), then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    7. Otherwise, select FAIL.
  5. Select PASS (all of the relevant restructuring transformations must meet the requirements)

Test 0002 Assertion: Recoding transformations either preserve accessibility information or the user is prompted or checking is enabled automatically or checking is suggested.

Test 0002 Author: Jan

  1. Determine which are the "included" technologies.
  2. Determine if the authoring tool provides any features that involve recoding transformations (Transformations in which the content technology used to encode the content is changed (e.g., HTML4 to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML4)) that meet the following conditions:
    • wheret he output it an "included" technology
    • must be automatic processes,
    • clipboard actions (such as copy and paste), are excluded because they are adressed by B.1.2.2.
    • transformations related to text alternatives for non-text content are excluded because they are addressed by B.1.2.4.
  3. If no transformations that meet these conditions are identified, then select SKIP.
  4. For each restructuring transformation:
    1. Open the accessible test content file (TARGET_LEVEL)
    2. Invoke the transformation.
    3. If the resulting content (when published) meets the "Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL)", then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    4. If before the transformation proceeds, the author is warned that accessibility information may be lost, then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    5. If, after the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed (check-as-you-type systems that check for accessibility continuously will meet this), then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    6. If, after the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking (such prompts need not be obtrusive), then go to the next restructuring transformation.
    7. Otherwise, select FAIL.
  5. Select PASS (all of the relevant restructuring transformations must meet the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.2.1 testsComments on B.1.2.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: wheret he
- also remove the table markup for the conditions
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

9. B.1.2.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG): If the authoring tool supports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is both the source and destination of the copy-paste and the source and destination use the same web content technology. (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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Accessibility information in the copied content is preserved when the same authoring tool editing view is both the source and destination of the copy-paste.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. If the authoring tool does not support copy-paste, then select SKIP.
  2. Open accessible test content file (TARGET_LEVEL).
  3. Copy as much of the content as possible and paste it back into the same editing view.
  4. Once the system produces output, compare it to the accessible test content file (TARGET_LEVEL). If it is identical or if the differences only affect whitespace, then select PASS.
  5. Follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure to determine whether the output meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria TARGET_LEVEL. If it does, then select PASS. Otherwise, select FAIL.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder B.1.2.2 testsComments on B.1.2.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li Recommend changes (see comments field) Shouldn't step 3 just be copy a structured content instead of as much content as possible?
Also, the condition of the SC is "support copy and past of structured content", not "support copy and paste". The test need to add the possibility that the structure did not copy over, no?

10. B.1.2.3 tests

Success Criteria

B.1.2.3 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility: If the authoring tool provides optimizing web content transformations, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A).

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Optimizing web content transformations preserve accessibility information.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. If the authoring tool does include any optimizations (e.g. "pretty print"), then select SKIP.
  2. For each type of optimization:.
    1. Open accessible test content file
    2. Once the system produces output, compare it to the accessible test content file. If it is identical or if the differences only affect whitespace, then go to the next type of optimization.
    3. Otherwise, follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure to determine if it meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria TARGET_LEVEL. If it does not, select FAIL.
    4. Go to the next type of optimization (if any).
  3. Select PASS (all of the optimizations must have preserved accessibility information)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.2.3 testsComments on B.1.2.3
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Some accessibility information need not be preserved in the optimization because it doesn't apply to the optimization - the example cited for example - unless it's a preview of the "pretty print" but why would you necessarily preserve alt text for content meant exclusively for hard copy?
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: ":."
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

11. B.1.2.4 tests

Success Criteria

B.1.2.4 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved: If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output. (Level A). Note: This success criterion only applies when the output technology is "included" for conformance.

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. Determine which are the "included" technologies. If there is only one technology or set of inter-twined technologies (e.g. HTML4.01 with JavaScript and images), then select SKIP.
  2. Determine if the authoring tool provides any transformations between any of the "included" technologies (e.g. HTML4.01 to HTML5). If there are no such transformations, then select SKIP.
  3. For each included technology:
    1. Open accessible test content file (for that content technology)
    2. For each transformation from that included technology to another included technology:
      1. Proceed to transform the content into that other included technology.
      2. Once the system produces output, follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A) for the non-text content only. If it is the case that any of the non-text content (e.g. images) are maintained across the transformation, but without the associated text alternatives, then select FAIL.
      3. Go to the next transformation to another included technology (if any).
    3. Go to the next "included" technology (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of the transformations between "included" technologies that preserve non-text content must also have preserved their text alternatives)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.1.2.4 testsComments on B.1.2.4
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) Output intended for online viewing. The print issue again comes to mind.
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols
Alex Li

12. B.2.1.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Any restrictions on the web content that authors can edit do not prevent the web content from conforming to WCAG.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. If the authoring tool does not place any restrictions on the web content that users can edit, then select PASS.
  2. Create some content using the following two rules:
    • Correctly follows any instructions provided (e.g., correctly responding to prompts, correctly replacing highlighted placeholders); and
    • Do no more authoring than requested by the instructions
  3. Once the system produces output, follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (TARGET_LEVEL) to determine if it meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria TARGET_LEVEL.
  4. If any of the content fails a WCAG 2.0 success criteria at the target level, then select FAIL. (a range of WCAG-conformant web content must not have been found)
  5. Select PASS (accessible content must at least be possible)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.1.1 testsComments on B.2.1.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: Remove table markup
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

13. B.2.2.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not. (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)

Test 0001 Assertion: The authoring tool interface first presents authors with the most accessible options when provided with several choices for achieving a desired result.

Test 0001 Author: Greg, Jan

  1. Examine the user interface, online help, or documentation for any options that would necessarily result in the production of inaccessible content even if the author:
    • Correctly follows any instructions provided (e.g., correctly responding to prompts, correctly replacing highlighted placeholders); and
    • Does no more authoring than requested by the instructions
  2. If no options necessarily resulting in inaccessible content are found, then select SKIP.
  3. For each option resulting in inaccessible content:
    1. Examine the user interface, online help, or documentation for the existence of an accessible alternative to the inaccessible option. If none exist, then go to the next option resulting in inaccessible content.
    2. If at least one accessible alternative exists, determine the minimum number of "opening actions" required to arrive at an accessible alternative. "Opening actions" are actions made by authors on components within the user interface that result in new components becoming displayed or enabled. (e.g., keyboard shortcut to a top-level menu item to display a sub-menu, keyboard selection on a button to display a dialog box, mouse click on a checkbox to enable previously disabled sub-items, etc. Actions that do not cause new components to become actionable (e.g., moving focus, scrolling a list), are not counted as "opening actions".)
    3. If the inaccessible option is arrived at via fewer opening actions than the accessible alternative, then select FAIL.
    4. Go to the next option resulting in inaccessible content (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of options leading to inaccessible content must be of lower prominence as measured by "opening actions")

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.2.1 testsComments on B.2.2.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: Remove table markup
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

14. B.2.2.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g., attribute values), then mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to accessibility information (WCAG). (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) Note: Success Criterion B.4.1.4 addresses the prominence of the mechanisms.

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: The authoring tool provides access to content properties related to accessibility information.

Test 0001 Author: Greg, Jan

  1. Examine the user interface, online help, or documentation for mechanisms that allow the author to set of modify content properties (e.g., HTML4 element attribute values). If this is not the case (e.g., tools that give authors very little low-level control), then select SKIP.
  2. Check whether mechanisms also exist for establishing or modifying accessibility properties (since different properties of the same object may be set in different places, be prepared to search).
  3. If there are no mechanisms for establishing or modifying accessibility properties, then select FAIL.
  4. If there is a mechanism for establishing content properties is available through the user interface (e.g. a dialog box) but users must modify accessibility settings externally (e.g. by editing an ini file or external preferences file), then select FAIL.
  5. Select PASS.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.2.2 testsComments on B.2.2.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

15. B.2.3.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. (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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: : Authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Identify, to yourelf, the parts of the accessible test content file that are considered programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content (e.g. alt-text, long descriptions, etc.; captions are not included).
  2. Open the accessible test content file with the authoring tool (if no open/import is provided, it may need to be pasted).
  3. If non of the types of programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content can be opened with or inserted by the authoring tool, then select SKIP.
  4. For each type of programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content:
    1. Attempt to modify the alternative content. If this is not possible, then select FAIL.
    2. Go to the next type of programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content (if any).
  5. Select PASS (all of types of alternative content could be edited)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.3.1 testsComments on B.2.3.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: non-->none
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

16. B.2.3.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following conditions are both true: (Level A)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Any automatic or semi-automatic repair attempts for text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") made during an authoring session, must not use generic strings and irrelevant strings and Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Determine whether the authoring tool ever automatically (the tool acting alone) or semi-automatically (the tool prompting the author for some input) inserts text alternatives for non-text content.
    1. An example of automatic repair: when the author inserts an image, the tool automatically sets the alt attribute to alt="" without informing the author.
    2. An example of semi-automatic repair: when the author inserts an image they are shown an "Inset Image" dialog. The dialog includes an "alt" field that has been pre-filled with the filename of the image.
  2. If no the automatic or semi-automatic repairs are attempted, then select SKIP.
  3. For each repair:
    1. If the repair includes a generic string that is specific to the image (e.g. "image", "picture", "graphic", "", " ", etc.), then select FAIL.
    2. If the repair includes text that is somewhat specific to the image, but is irrelevant to its description (e.g. "pic123.png", "PNG image", "200px by 300px", etc.), then select FAIL.
    3. If the authoring tool does not give you an opportunity to accept, modify or reject strings before they are used, then select FAIL. (In other words, purely automatic repairs with no opportunity for author acceptance are not permitted)
    4. Go to the next repair (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of repairs passed the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.3.2 testsComments on B.2.3.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO:
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

17. B.2.3.3 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Any automatic or semi-automatic repair attempts for text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") made after authoring sessions, must not use generic strings and irrelevant strings and Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Determine whether the authoring tool ever automatically inserts text alternatives for non-text content (e.g. a CMS displaying alt="" for images that the author has not specified an alt value for).
  2. If no the automatic repairs are attempted, then select SKIP.
  3. For each repair:
    1. If the repair includes a generic string that is specific to the image (e.g. "image", "picture", "graphic", "", " ", etc.), then select FAIL.
    2. If the repair includes text that is somewhat specific to the image, but is irrelevant to its description (e.g. "pic123.png", "PNG image", "200px by 300px", etc.), then select FAIL.
    3. Attempt to go back in and edit the content. If images with automatically generated text alternatives are not highlighted in some way then, then select FAIL.
    4. Go to the next repair (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of repairs passed the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.3.3 testsComments on B.2.3.3
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: If no the automatic repairs-->If no automatic repairs
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

18. B.2.3.4 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: If the authoring tool provides the functionality for adding non-text content, when authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, then both of the following are true: (Level AAA)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, then the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused, and the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.

Test 0001 Author: Jan

  1. Identify programmatically associated text alternatives that are candidates for being saved by the authoring tool (e.g. alt text for images, long descriptions for images, etc.; captions are not included).
  2. If the authoring tool does not provide any functionality for adding non-text content, then select SKIP.
  3. If the authoring tool does not provide any functionality for adding text alternatives for non-text content, then select SKIP.
  4. For each type of text alternatives for non-text content:
    1. Insert the relevant type of non-text content and a text alternative test string. Save, if relevant.
    2. Insert non-text content object again.
    3. If the the previously entered text alternative is not somehow suggested as a possible text alternatyive for the new instance, then select FAIL.
    4. Determine whether is is possible to edit and/or delete these saved text entries (e.g. in case of a spelling error). This functionality may be available when the text alternative is suggested or the text alternatives may be managed elsewhere in the authroting tool user interface. If not, then then select FAIL.
  5. Select PASS (all of types of alternatives for non-text content passed the requirements)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.3.4 testsComments on B.2.3.4
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

19. B.2.4.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses. (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)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: There are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses.

  1. If the authoring tool does not provide templates (i.e. content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users ), then select SKIP.
  2. If only blank document templates (resulting in empty documents if not filled in) are provided, then select PASS.
  3. For each template:
    1. Create some content using the template following these two rules:
      1. Correctly follows any instructions provided (e.g., correctly responding to prompts, correctly replacing highlighted placeholders); and
      2. Do no more authoring than requested by the instructions
    2. Once the system produces output, follow the Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure to determine if it meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria TARGET_LEVEL.
    3. Once two templates are found that meet WCAG 2.0 (or one, if there is only one template), select PASS.
    4. Go to the next template.
  4. Select FAIL. (a range of templates must not have been found)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4.1 testsComments on B.2.4.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

20. B.2.4.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the templates are provided such that the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. (Level AA) Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the accessible templates, the non-accessible templates or both.

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Template selection mechanisms can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options.

  1. If the authoring tool does not provide templates (Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users ), then select SKIP.
  2. If the authoring tool only provides templates that meet WCAG 2.0 (according to B.2.4.1), then select SKIP.
  3. If the authoring tool only provides templates that do not meet WCAG 2.0 (according to B.2.4.1), then select SKIP.
  4. If the authoring tool does not provide a mechanism for selecting templates that is not just a standard file selection mechanism, then select SKIP.
  5. For each template selection mechanism:
    1. Identify one template that is accessible and one template that is not.
    2. Observe how the two templates are displayed in the template selection mechanism. If there is not distinction between how they are displayed that could help the author to understand that one is accessible and the other not, then select FAIL.
    3. Go to the next template selection mechanism (if any).
  6. Select PASS (all of the template selection mechanisms must indicated the distinction)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4.2 testsComments on B.2.4.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: If the authoring tool does not provide a mechanism for selecting templates that is not just a standard file selection mechanism, then select SKIP.-->
If the authoring tool only provides a standard file selection mechanism for selecting templates, then select SKIP.

- not distinction-->no distinction
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

21. B.2.4.3 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates: If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new non-accessible templates (WCAG), then authors can enable the template selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-accessible templates that they create. (Level AA) Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the accessible templates (WCAG), the non-accessible templates or both.

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Authors can enable the template selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-accessible templates that they create.

  1. If the authoring tool does not provide templates (Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users ), then select SKIP.
  2. If the authoring tool does not provide a mechanism for selecting templates that is not just a standard file selection mechanism, then select SKIP.
  3. For each template selection mechanism:
    1. If the authoring tool does not allow authors to create templates (Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users ) for that selection mechanism, then select SKIP.
    2. Using as little content as possible, attempt to create a non-accessible template (e.g. by adding an image with no alternative text content). If this is possible, follow any instructions provided. If it is not possible to create a non-accessible template then select SKIP.
    3. Using as little content as possible, attempt to create an accessible template. If this is possible, follow any instructions provided. If it is not possible to create a accessible template then select FAIL.
    4. Compare how the two templates you created are displayed in the template selection mechanism. If there is not distinction between how they are displayed that could help the author to understand that one is accessible and the other not, then select FAIL.
    5. Go to the next template selection mechanism (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of the template selection mechanisms must indicated the distinction)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4.3 testsComments on B.2.4.3
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

22. B.2.4.4 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.4.4 Identify Template Accessibility (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides any non-accessible templates (WCAG) options and does not include a template selection mechanism, then the non-accessible templates include accessibility warnings within the templates. (Level AAA)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Template selection mechanisms can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options.

  1. If the authoring tool does not provide templates (Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users ), then select SKIP.
  2. If the authoring tool only provides templates that meet WCAG 2.0 (according to B.2.4.1), then select SKIP.
  3. If the authoring tool only provides templates that do not meet WCAG 2.0 (according to B.2.4.1), then select SKIP.
  4. If the authoring tool does provide a mechanism for selecting templates that is not just a standard file selection mechanism, then select SKIP.
  5. Select at least one templates that was identified as not accessible according to B.2.4.1.
  6. For each template:
    1. Open the tempate.
    2. Observe whether a warning is included that using this template could cause accessibility problems. If there is not, then select FAIL.
    3. Go to the next template (if any).
  7. Select PASS (all of the non-accessible templates must include a warning)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.4.4 testsComments on B.2.4.4
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

23. B.2.5.1 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.5.1 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Any repositories of pre-authored content records the accessibility status of each piece of content and makes accessible options sufficiently prominent.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. Search the authoring tool for pieces of pre-authored content intended for use by authors, but that are not templates (this was checked for B.2.4.1). For example, a clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes, etc. If none are found, then select SKIP.
  2. If the authoring tool only mechanism for selecting pre-authored content is just a standard file selection mechanism, then select SKIP.
  3. For each pre-authored content repository:
    1. Determine whether the pre-authored content in the repository will be likely to introduce accessibility problems if added to a blank document (e.g. an image without alt-text added to a blank document will cause an accessibility issue, a text paragraph containing a famous quote may not). If accessibility problems are not likely to be introduced, then go to the next repository.
    2. Determine whether the repository includes a mechanism for storing information about the accessibility of each object in the repository (e.g. a dedicated field in the repository database, a convention to include that information in the object's description field, etc.). If this is not present, then select FAIL. [this is the test for (a)]
    3. Determine whether any distinction in prominence (counted as any additional opening actions) are required to locate accessible pre-authored content. If this is the case, then select FAIL. [this is the test for (b)]
    4. Go to the next repository (if any).
  4. Select PASS (all of the pre-authored content repositories record accessibility status)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5.1 testsComments on B.2.5.1
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

24. B.2.5.2 tests

Success Criteria

B.2.5.2 Pre-Authored Content Accessibility Status: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA)

Test(s)

Test 0001 Assertion: Any repositories of pre-authored content records the accessibility status of each piece of content.

Test0001 Author: Jan

  1. Search the authoring tool for repositories (provided by the tool developer, not independent developer communities) of pre-authored content intended for use by authors, but that are not templates (templates were already checked in B.2.4.1). Examples might include: a clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes, etc. If none are found, then select SKIP.
  2. For each pre-authored content repository:
    1. Determine whether the pre-authored content in the repository will be likely to introduce accessibility problems if added to a blank document (e.g. adding an image without alt-text added to a blank document will cause an accessibility issue, adding the text of a famous quote may not). If accessibility problems are not likely to be introduced, then go to the next repository.
    2. Determine whether the repository includes a mechanism for storing information about the accessibility of each object in the repository (e.g. a dedicated field in the repository database, a convention to include that information in the object's description field, a text label in the filename of the content, etc.). If this is not present, then select FAIL.
    3. Determine whether the mechanism for storing information about the accessibility of each object in the repository (e.g. a dedicated field in the repository database, a convention to include that information in the object's description field, a text label in the filename of the content, etc.) is actually in use for the objects in the repository. If it is not, then select FAIL.
    4. Go to the next repository (if any).
  3. Select PASS (all of the pre-authored content repositories record accessibility status)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field)
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder B.2.5.2 testsComments on B.2.5.2
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal TYPO: pre-authored content records-->pre-authored content record
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Alex Li

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocadu.ca>
  2. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  3. Andrew Ronksley <andrew.ronksley@rnib.org.uk>
  4. Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
  5. Cherie Ekholm <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com>
  6. Tom Babinszki <tbabins@us.ibm.com>

Send an email to all the non-responders.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.127 2015-02-04 08:52:34 carcone Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)