Thread Subject: Re: Authoring tools: remaining issues

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: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2007 12:15 PM

Here is (slightly edited) text from my previous comment, as discussed today.

1 there are the 'simple' content formats, like TXT, BMP, etc which do not have the richness to be accessible in their own right. It doesn't make much sense for a tool which is only capable of producing these formats to have accessibility checking.

2 For 'richer' formats which do have the capability to pass the content provisions directly, there are tools specifically intended to work with those formats, and tools which can maybe import and convert, or work at a low level (like a text view mode of HTML) which really don't 'understand' the format; but which may be useful to do some manual fix-up for example.

We could separate the two classes of content as follows:

Accessibility supported content : content whose storage and transmission formats is capable of passing the content provisions.

Non accessibility supported content : content whose storage and transmission formats is incapable of passing the content provisions on its own.

Note: A set of content types taken together may be considered accessibility supported content, even if some or all of the types considered individually are not.


Then the definition of authoring tool could be:

Authoring tool: Software is considered an authoring tool for a content format or set of formats if :
1 : the software is able to create or modify content in that format for publication
2 : format is accessibility supported
3 : the software provides specific support for the features of the content format.

For example: An editor which understands the formatting requirements, attributes etc. of HTML is an authoring tool for HTML, whereas a simple text editor is not an authoring tool for HTML.

Sean Hayes
Incubation Lab
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office: +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Judy Brewer
Sent: 26 September 2007 17:17
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Authoring tools: remaining issues

We have several remaining issues regarding authoring tools. I've
summarized these below, along with questions and/or proposals for discussion.

Background:
The authoring tool section of the latest draft is available at
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#8.2_Additional_requirements_for_Authoring_Tools
Background from our prior discussion on authoring tool provisions is
available at
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:General_issues#Authoring_Tools


#1. [8.2-D] Evaluation Support
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#8.2-D_-_Evaluation_Support
"Authoring tools with a user interface must either provide a mode
which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems, or be
compatible with evaluation tools that provide that function."

Discussion of work in progress:
- Further discuss and write up a rationale explaining what is meant
by "compatible with..."
- (Sept 3 plenary) need to add more information about repair or remediation.

Recap of existing discussion:
- relationship between authoring tools and evaluation tools was
initially stated as "interoperable with"
- concerns raised about "interoperable with" potentially being too constraining
- substituted with "compatible with"
- concerns raised about "compatible with" being too vague
- concerns raised at plenary that repair & remediation need to be addressed

Questions:
- What are the essential needs with regard to the use of authoring
tools and evaluation tools when repair or remediation is needed (as
opposed to just conformance assessment)?
- Would addressing the repair & remediation issue be a more direct
way to address the concerns underlying the
interoperability/compatibility issue, and if so, would something
along the lines of the following approach help?
"Authoring tools with a user interface must either provide a mode
that assists authors in checking and repairing accessibility
problems, or they must be able to accept output from evaluation tools
and use this to support remediation."


#2. [8.2B] Preserve Accessibility Information
"Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary to
meet applicable Section 508 provisions, unless the user explicitly
indicates otherwise."
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#8.2-B_-_Preserve_Accessibility_Information

Discussion or Rationale: Need to write up a rationale that includes
an explanation of why "unless the user explicitly indicates
otherwise" is necessary, so that the phrase is not lost during later work.

Proposed rationale:
"The phrase "unless the user explicitly indicates otherwise" is
necessary so that the author has the ability to override
accessibility information that may be incomplete or inadequate."

Question:
- Does that explain the phrase clearly enough?


#3. [8.2-C] Prompts
"Authoring tools with a user interface must provide a mode which
prompts authors to create accessible content."
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#8.2-C_-_Prompts

Discussion or Rationale: There are concerns to still be worked out on this.

Questions:
- What were the remaining concerns on this? I can't find this in the
existing threads or minutes, and the concern logged in the draft is
non-specific.


#4. Definition of authoring tools:
"Any software used to create or modify content for publication."
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#Authoring_Tools

Discussion of Work in Progress:
* This is not intended to apply to text editors like Notepad.
Concern that this will be too broadly applied due to the definition of
"content". Subcommittee still working on these concerns.
* Proposal: change "used" to "intended"

Question:
- Would replacing "used" with "intended" be sufficient to address the
concern about the scope of this definition?
The proposed new definition would read "Any software intended to
create or modify content for publication."


Regards,

- Judy

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