Thread Subject: Re: Proposal (updated 20 June) on authoring tools

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2007 10:25 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Judy Brewer: "Fwd: Re: Proposal (updated 20 June) on authoring tools"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Hi All,

There seems to be a remaining concern on one of these questions from Andrew
Kirkpatrick. Andrew, I'm trying to understand your concern as expressed
near the top of this thread.
- If some tools but not all tools have automatically-generated content,
isn't there still a need to address the issue of accessibility of
automatically-generated content?
- If you're saying that the proposed definition of authoring tools, which
includes the concept of "a collection of software components" somehow
precludes the notion of automatically-generated content, could you please
explain your concern further?
- Do you have a suggestion for a rephrasing that would better address your
concerns, yet still address support for production of accessible content?

Thanks,

- Judy

At 10:00 AM 6/27/2007 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>At 06:06 AM 6/27/2007 -0700, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > > >AWK: I support the idea of this standard, but with "authoring tool"
> > > >potentially meaning "multiple tools in a process" I'm not sure that
> > > >there is such a thing as automatically-generated content. We have a
> > > >product that creates a flash-based version of a Microsoft PowerPoint
> > > >slideshow. You can't add an equivalent to an image
> > >
> > > JB: There's no way in this product to add an equivalent to an
> > > image that doesn't have one yet, when it is bringing in
> > > converted content? Seems that this would be useful to have.
> >
> >In this "authoring tool" there is, it is through the interface in
> >PowerPoint. We have other products that provide the ability to do
> >editiing, but this particular product is just a simple push-button to
> >generate content (and do so accessibly if fed the right information).
>
>JB: Does the definition that's been in circulation (I'm re-sending again)
>work for you on this? ("...or collection of software components..." Seems
>that it includes the concept of multiple tools in a process.




> > > >AWK: Is there a possible world where a tool can meet #1 and
> > > not meet #2?
> > > >If so, why have #2?
> > >
> > > JB: #1 addresses the ability to produce accessible content;
> > > #2 addresses the preservation of accessibility information in
> > > existing content.
> > > [Unfortunately] it is possible for an authoring tool to be
> > > able to produce accessible content, yet also strip out
> > > existing accessibility information.
> > > Therefore these are two separate problems, and I believe that
> > > it is both appropriate and necessary to have both provisions.
> >
> >I think that you're splitting a hair here. The goal is to generate
> >accessible content, and if the tool does that it should be OK. I think
> >that #1 is sufficient.
>
>JB: If tool A allows production of new accessibility content, but without
>author action strips out other types of accessibility content that may have
>been produced by tool B and imported into tool A, then that seems to be
>interfering with one of the goals of arriving at accessible content.
>
> > > JB: There doesn't seem to be any need to identify what "*the
> > > most* accessible authoring action" in a given situation would
> > > be, but rather to give prominence to "accessible authoring
> > > actions," or "authoring actions that support production of
> > > accessible content." This would remove the problem of
> > > potentially forcing a specific workflow onto people. Jan
> > > Richards had suggested the following wording, which I think is an
> > > improvement: "An alternative proposal would be 'Authoring
> > > tools should give prominence to accessible authoring actions
> > > for achieving an authoring outcome."
> >
> >This doesn't address the issue that there are many ways to accomplish
> >different tasks - how do we choose which to give prominence to? Any
> >what exactly does "give prominence" mean?
>
>JB: I've provided links to a definition, explanation and examples earlier
>on the thread. Will re-post.
>
> > > >AWK: As has been stated before, many aspects of designing an
> > > accessible
> > > >web page require author input and can't be made part of a template.
> > > >I'm concerned about how this gets scoped against the web content
> > > >standards as a result.
> > >
> > > JB: I'm not sure that there's an assumption that templates
> > > would encompass all possible author actions. It seems that
> > > some author input needed for development of an accessible Web
> > > page would be possible to do through a template, and some
> > > might need to be done outside a template. The version of the
> > > draft language on this above reads: "Authoring tools which
> > > provide preauthored content or templates to facilitate rapid
> > > production of electronic content MUST provide at least one
> > > version that meets applicable electronic content
> > > accessibility standards." If it's not possible to do the
> > > given authoring action within a template, wouldn't that
> > > content accessibility standard be not applicable? Do you have
> > > a different suggestion for how to scope this?
> >
> >I'll have to think on this a bit.
>
>Please see wrt slightly updated language.
>
>Regards,
>
>- Judy
>
>
> >AWK
> >

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Judy Brewer: "Fwd: Re: Proposal (updated 20 June) on authoring tools"