Thread Subject: Re: Proposal on authoring tools
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 12:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jan Richards: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Previous message in thread: firstname.lastname@example.org: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
6. Authoring tools, when providing templates or other pre-authored content, should provide templates that facilitate production of accessible content, and pre-authored content that is accessible.
.......the tool should provide a certain minimum number of pre-coded accessible objects (ie, buttons, tables, templates, CSS files, form components) offered to the author to choose from first. (They would need to look farther to find in-accessible objects, or not find them at all, in a very good product).
>From: Peter Korn < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Jun 7, 2007 12:48 PM
>To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal on authoring tools
>> 4. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
>> Can't we get a bit stronger than "prompts"? Although I sort of lean towards "forces", there are other choices.
>There is no way a tool can know that the information a user enters is
>the correct information (e.g. is the description of a graphic a useful
>one that makes the graphic accessible?). There are too many cases
>requiring judgment calls. Further, there are situations in which more
>information isn't helpful - it is sometimes quite appropriate to NOT
>enter information (e.g. obvious user interface elements only need a
>"name", not also a "description", and putting a lengthy and unnecessary
>description in that gets read by a screen reader can actually be a
>burden to people with disabilities).
>I think "forces" or something like it will actually generate problems in
>> 6. Authoring tools, when providing templates or other pre-authored content, should provide templates that facilitate production of accessible content, and pre-authored content that is accessible.
>> 7. Authoring tools should give prominence to the most accessible authoring action for achieving an authoring outcome.
>> both of the "shoulds" in these two ought to be stronger, say "must"?
>One big concern with #7 is that the "most accessible authoring action"
>is often not testable. It is certainly somewhat subjective. I think
>this has to be advisory, relying on the best judgment of folks making
>With #6, we again have a lot of judgment calls involved in templates -
>how many of the templates, how much facilitation? Things that are
>"musts" need to be testable; I don't know how to test this.
>Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- Next message in Thread: Jan Richards: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Previous message in Thread: email@example.com: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"