Thread Subject: Re: Proposal (updated) on authoring tools

Note

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: Judy Brewer
Date: Wed, Jun 13 2007 10:10 AM

At 08:53 AM 6/13/2007 -0400, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>Here are my thoughts in detail regarding the most recent language for
>authoring tools.
>
> [UPDATED] Authoring tools must have the ability to produce content
>which passes the electronic content provisions for each content format
>that individual tools are capable of producing.
>Comment:
>I think we should use "meet" rather than pass. I think we need to pin
>down where the electronic content provisions are specifically, as the
>electronic content format provisions are for formats. Also, tools only
>need to have the ability to produce electronic content that is
>accessible for formats that "can" be accessible, e.g. meet minimum
>format accessibility provisions.
>
>My revision:
>1. [UPDATED] Authoring tools must have the ability to produce
>electronic content which meets the electronic content provisions (insert
>references) for each electronic content format that meets minimum
>electronic content format accessibility provisions the individual tools
>are capable of producing.

"Meet" seems better than "pass"; but I think that the proposed provision
overall now sounds circular and/or presents a readability problem.

>#2: [UPDATED] Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information
>necessary for meeting the electronic content provisions unless the user
>explicitly indicates otherwise.
>Comment:
>Only need to restate we need to pin down the electronic content
>provisions specifically.
>
>Explanatory information might include:
>
>Authoring tools must not remove, or render inoperable or unusable
>accessibility attributes and functionalities of electronic content,
>accept where doing so would improve the compliance of the content.

What is our leeway for explanatory provisions?

>#3: [UPDATED] Authoring tools must provide a mode in which any content
>that is specified exclusively by the authoring tool must be accessible.
>Comment:
>I don't think this is clear that content produced automatically by an
>authoring tool MUST either fully meet electronic content provisions, or
>be editable by the author to meet the same. It can also combine #7.
>proposed revision:
>#3: [UPDATED] Authoring tools must provide a mode in which any content
>that is specified exclusively by the authoring tool, including
>templates, must either meet electronic content provisions, or be
>editable in a consistent fashion to meet the electronic content
>provisions.

Isn't this combining w/ #6?

"...in a consistent fashion" seems unnecessary & difficult to test

Otherwise, interested in discussion on this.

>#4: [UPDATED] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools
>must provide a default mode which prompts authors to create accessible
>content.
>comment:
>will propose combo of #4 and others. I think the multiple provisions
>regarding "how" assistance to authors is delivered need to be combined.
>Pros, makes standards more straightforward. Cons, may make the
>"assistance" standard less significant over all.


>#5. [WAS] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools
>must provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility
>problems.
>
>Comment: combining several here.
>#5. Authoring tools with user interfaces must provide a default mode
>which assists authors to assess and remediate electronic content to meet
>applicable electronic content provisions by interactively prompting the
>author for accessibility information, identifying, when possible,
>compliance of authoring actions, and programmatically assessing
>electronic content for compliance.

Seems to add several new concepts...

[running out of time for further replies here, will discuss in teleconf or
later online]

>
>Explanatory information:
>Authoring tools MUST include as part of the tool, or in combination with
>other components, the ability to programmatically assess electronic
>content for compliance with the applicable electronic content
>provisions. such functionality must include, by default interactively
>prompting authors to set accessibility attributes such as alternative
>text, and when possible identifying from a set of choices which is the
>most compliant selection or action.
>
>
>#6. [WAS] 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.
>Comment:
>I think this can be combined into #3. See #3.
>
>#7. [WAS] Authoring tools should give prominence to the most accessible
>authoring action for achieving an authoring outcome.
>Comment: I think this can be combined with #5.
>
>#8: "...any software, or collection of software components, that
>authors use to create or modify Web content for publication."
>
>comment:
>Need to be more flexible in terms of user-interface.
>
>proposed revision:
>#8: "...any application, or collection of applications components, that
>authors use to create or modify electronic content, including web-based
>content for publication."
>
>Thanks.
>I will be late to the call today so hopefully some of this can be
>included in the discussion.
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University