Thread Subject: Re: Authoring Tools -- checking definition & provisions

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: Li, Alex
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 3:15 PM

I'm trying to imagine what an email application is suppose to do to meet
the proposed 3 and 4 provision for authoring tool. What should be
prompted to the email author by the application? After all, simply
typing a smiley face would break the provision on non-text content. Or
typing in foreign languages phrase will break the language of part
provision. Are we asking email apps to provide some sort of
accessibility QA tool before sending?

Second scenario, what about software development tools such as eclipse,
netbeans, visual studio, etc? Do we expect prompting all along the way
as the developer code? Perhaps these are not really authoring tools per
the definition anyway because you use such devlopment tools to produce
software, not content. But I'm not sure. If we are only looking at
"content" authoring tools, then we should say Content Authoring Tools
instead of authoring tools. After all, almost all software would
produce something--be it considered content or not.

Then it begs the question of what is content, which is another can of
worm...

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Wednesday, Aug 15, 2007 11:00 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: teitac-websoftware Digest, Vol 11, Issue 48

Send teitac-websoftware mailing list submissions to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

You can reach the person managing the list at
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of teitac-websoftware digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Authoring Tools -- checking definition & provisions (Judy Brewer)
2. Re: Cognitive - removal of Animation provision (Jared Smith)
3. Re: proposed EWG wording changes (Jared Smith)
4. Re: Use of the term "Web content" (Peter Wallack)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:58:24 -0400
From: Judy Brewer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Authoring Tools -- checking definition &
provisions
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20070815115227.02fb0d28@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I've updated the Wiki area on authoring tools again to reflect our
discussion at yesterday's (Aug 14) teleconference, and discussion
questions
for our Aug 15 teleconference. You can find the latest version of the
definition, and the provisions, at:

http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:General_issues#Authoring_Tools

In addition, given the heavy (!!) traffic on the list recently, I'm
pasting
in the relevant bits below, so they're handy for our discussion today.

Regards,

- Judy


Definition of authoring tools: "Authoring Tool: any software used to
create
or modify content for publication."

+ Proposed clarification for discussion Aug 15: (Note:
this is my attempt to capture the status of the discussion so far; if
I've
missed something, please help out.) If we were to use an inclusive
clarification reflecting the language we removed yesterday (e.g., "'any
software' is intended to mean 'any software, or collection of software
components', we have not solved the problems inherent in a developer
potentially needing to provide conformance statements for an entire
chain
of software components, some of which they might have no control over.
If
instead we were to use a non-exclusive clarification (e.g., either "'any

software' can refer to more than stand-alone authoring products" or
"'any
software' can refer to multiple software components," -- or better
clarification language if someone can propose that), does this
clarification help? For instance, does it enable a developer to claim
accessibility support in related products that are part of an authoring
chain, and a purchaser to be able to determine what useful level of
support
for production of accessible content would be available from products
that
they might purchase? Or is this not what people's concerns were? I think
it
bears having some brief discussion in our August 15 teleconference, but
if
neither of such clarifications clearly helps the definition, perhaps it
is
also better to leave this clarification for after the Aug 17 draft, or
possibly to just let the definition stand alone. Thoughts?


Provisions relating to authoring tool support for production of
accessible
content: (I'm only including here the ones still open for discussion.
See
Wiki page for the rest.)

3. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
(Note:
this is the first half of the re-split provision which we agreed to try.

Work OK?)

4. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
either provide a mode which assists authors in checking for
accessibility
problems, or compatability with evaluation tools that provide that
function. (Note: this is the second half of the re-split provision which
we
agreed to try. Work OK?)(Note: after Aug 17, further discuss and write
up a
rationale explaining what is meant by "compatability with...")




--
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



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:15:46 -0600
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive - removal of Animation
provision
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID:
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 8/15/07, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> The animation provision was removed at the August 1st meeting. We
always
> had an issue with a mismatch between "animation" and "pausing" and
> confusion over when one applies vs. the other.

I think part of the confusion is about whether traditional animation
is included in the Pausing provision. This was asked in yesterday's
call, but not really answered. If animation is considered part of
"moving" content, perhaps this should be clarified. The only
difference this would result in is the omission of the 3 second buffer
that was allowed for animation.

Jared Smith


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:22:31 -0600
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] proposed EWG wording changes
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID:
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Just a few comments/thoughts:

- In most places, we list the exception first and then the
requirement. For instance, "if it is in a table, the row and column
the object is in, and the headers for the row and column for that
object" would better match the rest of the provisions (plus, I think
it reads a bit easier).

- I think the changes on the User Interface Components provision might
make it unclear that the 2nd and 3rd sentences apply only to user
interface components. Recommended change for 2nd sentence: "States,
properties, and values *of these components* that can be set by the
user..."

- The new Pausing provision loses a little meaning. The edit now
suggests that the moving content itself must allow the stopping. Also,
it has been mentioned a few times that the Pausing provision should
allow hiding of decorative content, but this has not yet been
included, or it has been omitted by a decision I'm not aware of.

Suggested wording:
"A mechanism must be provided to pause moving, blinking, scrolling, or
auto-updating information unless it is part of an activity where
timing or movement is essential. A mechanism must be provided to stop
*or hide* moving content that is pure decoration."

- Under Reading Sequence, change to "... a correct reading sequence
must be programmatically *determinable*..." Programmatic determination
happens when the user accesses it. Authors must only ensure that the
information is programmatically determinable.

Jared Smith


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:55:11 -0700
From: Peter Wallack < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Use of the term "Web content"
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070815/36a5d517/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

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