Thread Subject: Proposal (updated 20 June) 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 20 2007 11:05 AM

Dear All,

I have further updated the proposal on authoring tools based on our
discussion at last week's Web/Software meeting and some subsequent
discussion on the mailing list. I've highlighted some of the open questions
remaining for discussion; it would be valuable to get some input into those
questions today, though some of these provisions will need additional
discussion on the list.

The "WAS" text below now refers to last week's proposal; the "UPDATED"
represents best efforts to capture comments since then; and "BECAUSE"
summarizes some of the input. "PROPOSED" means that we appear to have
reached consensus as there are no objections or discussions pending.
"DISCUSS" identifies known remaining questions for discussion.

#1. [WAS] 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.
[UPDATED] (no updated wording yet, but possibly go back to...) Authoring
tools must have the ability to produce content which passes the electronic
content provisions.
[BECAUSE] (need info on electronic content provisions, and more on-list
discussion on this one.)
[DISCUSS] On list.

#2. [PROPOSED] Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information
necessary
for meeting the electronic content provisions unless the user explicitly
indicates otherwise.

#3. [WAS] Authoring tools must provide a mode so that any content that can
be generated by the tool without requiring author input will pass the
electronic content provisions
[UPDATED] (same, unless one of the following is an improvement)
[BECAUSE] At our last teleconference it was requested that a rewording of
this be attempted without the restriction of "mode" or "provide a mode." I
believe that the most direct rewording of this without the "provide a mode"
restriction would be:
- "Any content that can be generated by an authoring tool without requiring
author input must be able to pass the electronic content provisions."
If "generated by" cannot be interpreted to include "converted by," then
perhaps that rewording would work; but if not, the requirement would not be
feasible since converted content would not always include the necessary
accessibility information. Possible alternative re-wordings then would be:
- "With the exception of conversion tools, any content that can be
generated by an authoring tool without requiring author input must be able
to pass the electronic content provisions."
OR:
- "Authoring tools must, with the exception of conversion tools, ensure
that any content that can be generated by the tool without requiring author
input will pass the electronic content provisions."
[DISCUSS] Are any of the possible re-wordings in the "Because" section
above an improvement over the "Was" version above, which includes the
phrase "must provide a mode"?

#4. [WAS] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
provide a default mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
[UPDATED] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
prompt authors to create accessible content, unless the default mode is to
produce accessible content.
[BECAUSE] It was noted that prompting does not make sense where the default
mode already results in production of accessible content.
[DISCUSS] Does this wording work?

#5. [WAS] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems.
[UPDATED] For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
either provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility
problems, or interoperate with evaluation tools that provide that function.
[BECAUSE] Kept separate so far from #4 because emphasis in #4 now on
required prompting or default, and because there is still on-going
discussion as to on-board evaluation function vs interoperability with
evaluation tools.
[DISCUSS] Does this wording work?

#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.
[UPDATED] Authoring tools with a user interface must provide templates that
facilitate production of accessible content, and pre-authored content (such
as buttons and form components) that is accessible.
[BECAUSE] It was suggested that this be a "must" rather than a "should";
but it was also noted that this requirement would not make sense for some
kinds of authoring tools, such as those which convert existing content.
Also, clarifications were requested on the meaning of "pre-authored content".
[DISCUSS] (1) Are the examples of "pre-authored content" sufficient, and do
they belong in the provision, or as explanatory notes following the
provision? (2) Several people have expressed concerns about the testability
of this provision, including a question about whether the provision should
specify how many templates, or how much facilitation, should be provided.
Is this provision sufficiently testable?

#7. [WAS] Authoring tools should give prominence to the most accessible
authoring action for achieving an authoring outcome.
[UPDATED] (same)
[BECAUSE] A clarification was requested for "prominence," and was provided
from ATAG 2.0. It was suggested that this be changed from "should" to
"must"; but conversely it was suggested by several people that this be
dropped, and that "most accessible authoring action" is not testable.
[DISCUSS] Is the intent of this provision to ensure that accessible
authoring actions are not buried in the tool interface, and if so, isn't
this at least partially addressed by #4, meaning that this could be dropped?

#8. [DEFINITION] Several people asked and others discussed the definition
of authoring tools. The following definition was drawn from ATAG 2.0:
"...any software, or collection of software components, that authors use to
create or modify Web content for publication." It was also suggested that
this definition be broadened beyond Web-related authoring tools.
[DISCUSS] Does this definition work for authoring tools within TEITAC? Does
the definition still work if "Web" is dropped?

Regards,

- Judy


--
Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

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