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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2007 12:20 PM

Some notes we may need to add regarding authoring tools may be:

Authoring tools are not to include tools designed to primarily author
"coding" or computer languages. Such tools are not creating content for
publication, but are designed and used to develop logically laid out and
specifically coded information for use by other software coding
interpreters, compilers, etc, not for general rendering and reading.
Authoring tools only need to provide prompting for accessibility
requirements that are supported by the format content is to be saved in.
authoring tools for synchronized media may only need to provide the
ability to add synchronized captions, or video descriptions as separate
activities not inline with normal video/audio editing tasks. Authoring
tools for software development should include the ability to examine
language specific attributes, when available, to determine if specific
properties of interface elements are set, but this functionality should
be a user-selectable activity, not a inline activity combined with input
of code.








Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Judy
Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:17 PM
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