Thread Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: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: Tue, Mar 11 2008 1:55 PM

I concur with Andi and Allen that the scoping phrase
"that support compliance with the user interface and content
provisions"
is necessary.

Allen, I'm unclear about your question below, though. Are you
suggesting that there are other requirements that should fall on
these otherwise out-of-scope tools? The example of an inaccessible
org chart unfortunately doesn't help me understand your comment,
since if it were built with Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), the
relationships among the graphics should be accessible; therefore, I
think that an SVG authoring tool would fall within the scope of this
definition of authoring tool; therefore, for at least some org chart
authoring tools, it is possible for them to support accessibility.

- Judy

At 11:05 AM 3/10/2008 -0400, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>Andi is correct.
>
>The idea was, that for a tool like NotePad, which edits files in ASCII,
>such things as alternate text are not feasible, or sensible, so the
>authoring tool requirements would not be applicable. My only question,
>Andi, is, how should such tools be considered? If we can identify that
>maybe an additional note for such tools would be helpful?
>
>So, for example, an org-chart program uses a proprietary format to
>present the organizations, it has graphics, relationships, text, and
>pictures. Just because that format is inaccessible does not, in my
>view, mean that the tool shouldn't produce accessible content. It can't
>because the format chosen won't allow it to work. How do we address
>this?
>
>
>Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
>Snow-Weaver
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:44 AM
>To: TEITAC Committee
>Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring
>Tools
>
>Mike and Robert,
>
>I don't think the phrase can be deleted. It's meant to scope the
>definition to tools that support content formats which enable the
>creation of accessible content. If you can't create accessible content
>in the first place with a particular content format, then there's no use
>requiring the authoring tool to support the authoring tool requirements.
>
>Andi
>
>
> "Mike Paciello"
>
> <mpaciello@paciel
>
> logroup.com>
>To
> Sent by: "'Baker, Robert C.'"
>
> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>"'TEITAC
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Committee'"
>
> ac.org
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>cc
>
>
> 03/10/2008 08:48
>Subject
> AM Re: [teitac-committee] Definition
>
> Consensus Decision: Authoring
>
> Tools
>
> Please respond to
>
> mpaciello@paciell
>
> ogroup.com;
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC Committee
>
> <teitac-committee
>
> @list.teitac.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.
>
>-mike
>
>Mike Paciello
>Cell: +1.603.566.7713
>
>
>From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] Sent:, Monday,
>March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
>Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring
>Tools
>
>Concur with minor change,
>
>"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
>publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
>interface and content provisions.
>
>the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface
>and content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.
>
>Robert
>
>
>
>

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