Important Changes from ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working draft

Status

This informative document compares the major changes from the Last Call of ATAG 2.0 of 10 April 2012 with the proposed Editors' Draft for Candidate Recommendation, in order to obtain consensus that these changes below are minor clarifications that do not require a re-evaluation of IPP or change the implementations of ATAG 2.0 currently under development. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) agrees that the changes listed below either clarify the intent of the success criteria or broaden the success criteria to make them easier to meet without compromising the intent. The changes are grouped as follows:

Clarifications in response to public comments.
Changes to conditional clauses of the success criteria so the authoring tools with desired accessibility practices will pass the success criteria, instead of being not applicable.
Inclusive Changes where the success criteria changes were more than a simple clarification, but were more inclusive and do not change reviews or existing implementations.
Substantial Changes requested by the authoring tool vendors that make it easier to meet the guideline and
Removed success criterion.

Note: spelling, punctuation, and capitalization corrections are not included here. See the Automated DIFF service document for those changes. Additional information supporting this document can be found at:

==Proposal==

The changes in the sections labeled Clarification and Conditional Clause changes are not substantial. The changes in the section labeled Inclusive Changes are not substantial. The Removed items had no implementations and were unlikely to acquire them, based on public comments and informal feedback to AUWG.

The success criteria with substantial changes are similar. All three success criteria required the authoring tool to identify and warn users of templates, clip art, or pre-authored content that did not meet WCAG. Public comment and informal feedback to AUWG agreed that this system would be difficult and expensive to develop.

I propose publishing ATAG 2.0 as a Working Draft with minimal time for comments.

==Clarifications (1)==

===A.3.3.1===

Last Call: A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If the authoring tool contains editing-views that render visual time-based content, then those editing-views can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)

Proposed CR: A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If an editing-view can play visual time-based content, then playing is not necessarily automatic upon loading the content and playing can be paused. (Level A)

Rationale:When writing tests it was discovered that the Last Call phrasing meant that content that never played automatically would fail because they did not have a setting to stop automatic play. This change is more inclusive allowing visual time-based content that never plays automatically to be able to pass, which was the intent of the success criterion. For additional information, links to: identification of the problem and discussion of proposals.

==Conditional Clause Change (6)==

This rationale applies to the following 6 success criteria.

Rationale: The Last Call version of the success criteria in this section created the situation where authoring tools with desired accessibility practices would have the success criteria "not applicable" rather than pass the success criteria. It set up a situation where a undesired accessibility practice would have to be corrected in order to pass the success criteria. The clauses have been changed to allow the desired situation to pass, and then allow an undesirable practice to be corrected and pass.

===A.3.2.1===

Last Call: A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)

Proposed CR: A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum): The authoring tool does not include session time limits or the authoring tool can automatically save edits made before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)

===A.3.2.2===

Last Call: A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true:

Proposed CR: A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: The authoring tool does not include time limits or at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

===A.3.2.3===

Last Call: A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: If authoring tool user interface components accept input and move, then authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

Proposed CR: A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: The authoring tool does not include moving user interface components that accept input where the movement of these components cannot be paused by authors. (Level A)

===B.1.1.1===

Last Call: 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).

Proposed CR: B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The authoring tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG).

===B.2.1.1===

Last Call: 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.

Proposed CR: B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met.

===B.4.1.2===

Last Call: B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: If authors can turn off an accessible content support feature, then they can turn the feature back on.

Proposed CR: B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be turned back on.

==Inclusive Changes (3)==

===B.1.2.2===

Last Call: 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.

Proposed CR: 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.

Rationale: B.1.2.2 change is not substantial as it is more inclusive for authoring tools to meet. The change provides protection from a theoretical situation where copy paste formats across differing technologies would not support all the accessibility information. This change does not change existing reviews or implementations. Two comments from IBM pointed out that it may not be possible for different formats to support copy-paste of the accessibility information when the accessibility information is not supported by both formats.

===B.2.3.1===

Last Call: 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.

Proposed CR: 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.
Note: An exception can be made when the non-text content is known to be decoration, formatting, invisible or a CAPTCHA.

Rationale: B.2.3.1 change is not substantial as it is more inclusive for authoring tools to meet. One authoring tool vendor (public comment MS2) requested this change to allow authoring tools to protect certain non-text content (common to templates) from author edits. Since the accessibility of this non-text content is covered by B.1.1.1 and B.1.1.2, this does not change the accessibility of the content produced by the authoring tool. AUWG agreed that many authoring tools would want to restrict authors from being able to edit those items. This change does not change existing reviews or implementations.

===B.2.3.2 & B.2.3.3 Merge===

Last Call: B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions: If the authoring tool automatically suggests text alternatives for non-text content during the authoring session, then the text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions:

(a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and
(b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

Last Call: B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair: If the authoring tool provides automatic repair of text alternatives for non-text content after the end of an authoring session, then the authoring tool avoids using text values that would also be available to user agents.

Proposed CR: B.2.3.2 Automating Repair of Text Alternatives: The authoring tool does not attempt to repair text alternatives for non-text content or the following are all true:

(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as text alternatives; and
(b) In-Session Repairs: If the repair attempt occurs during an authoring session, authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair attempt prior to insertion of the text alternative into the content; and
(c) Out-of-Session Repairs: If the repair attempt occurs after an authoring session has ended, the repaired text alternatives are indicated during subsequent authoring sessions (if any) and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.

Rationale: Change was initiated by multiple comments MS3, IBM19, MS4 and IBM20. All of the conditions are preserved in the merge, except the "Relevant Sources" has been broadened to be more adaptable to emerging technologies such pattern recognition and contextual information as a way to suggest or repair missing accessibility information.

B.2.3.2 & B.2.3.3 merge is not substantial as the only item removed makes it more inclusive for authoring tools to meet. The Last Call version of B.2.3.2 (b) inadvertently restricted emerging technologies such as pattern recogition and contextual information as a means of suggesting or repairing missing accessibility information. Note that the "conditions on automatic suggestions" are preserved in the new B.2.3.2 (b). This change does not change existing reviews or implementations.

==Substantial Changes (3) ==

===B.2.4.4===

Last Call: 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.

Proposed CR: B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible templates (to WCAG Level AA)

Rationale: While writing tests, AUWG had the consensus that the Last Call version of the success criterion would be difficult and expensive to implement. It was the opinion of several industry members that it would be easier to make all the templates accessible than to to create a warning system. AUWG decided to simplify the success criterion back to the original intent, which was to have all accessible templates.

===B.2.5.1===

Last Call: 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)

(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible (WCAG) options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

Proposed CR: B.2.5.1 Accessible Pre-Authored Content Options: If the authoring tool provides pre-authored content, then a range of accessible pre-authored content (to WCAG Level AA) options are provided.

Rationale: Change was in response to comment IBM21. New definitions were created for pre-authored content and accessible pre-authored content. The concept of accessibility status was removed and replaced with accessible pre-authored content.

===B.2.5.2===

Last Call: 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.

Proposed CR: B.2.5.2 Identify Pre-Authored Content Accessibility: If the authoring tool includes a pre-authored content selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible pre-authored content (WCAG Level AA) options, then the selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options.

Rationale:While working on the changes to B.2.5.1 in response to public comment IBM21 it was noted that B.2.5.2 language had drifted from B.2.4.2 IdentifyTemplate Accessibility with which it was originally paired. It has been restored to be parallel to "B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility: If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. (Level AA)"

==Removed (2)==

===A.3.6.4===

A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings , then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings. ( Level AAA ) Implementing A.3.6.4

Rationale: AUWG has not identified any implementations. Informal feedback that AUWG received was that this is more a function of the operating system than the authoring tool.

===B.4.1.3===

Last Call: B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented.

Rationale: In response to public comment IBM23. There is no incentive for developers to comply to this SC, and it would be difficult for an authoring tool development legal department to agree to document it. AUWG has not identified any implementations.