Thread Subject: Re: 7-C Prompts (in 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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Mar 19 2008 6:30 AM

I think this is a great improvement, thanks Whitney.
Here is only a minor change to the wording of the provision to improve
readability.

Whitney's original:
7-C - PROMPTS
An authoring tool must provide a mode which prompts authors to create
accessible content for formats authored by that tool.

My suggested change:
7-C - PROMPTS
Authoring tools must provide a mode which prompts authors to assist in
creation of accessible content for formats authored by that tool.

The difference from my perspective is that the tools should "help"
authors, not prompt them only. So, for example the meaning of prompt
authors to create accessible content might mean for some that a prompt
"make sure its accessible' would be sufficient, when clearly that isn't
what we intended. A tool that allows an author to get prompted for
adding attributes to columnar information, or tables for reading
sequence is more in line with our thinking, than a simple prompt to make
it accessible which could be some folks mis-interpretation. A not of
this type might help clear this up without provision change, but
hopefully my suggested change does the trick for all.

Thanks.




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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:20 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 7-C Prompts (in authoring tools)

I see the issues that Version 5 is trying to solve, but the wording is
so convoluted that it's hard to understand what it's saying. A revised
version follows

Version 5 says:

"An authoring tool [[, or suite of tools used to author content, whether
such suite is composed of tools from a single vendor or multiple
vendors,]]...'

- If there is a definition of authoring tool (suggested in the final
words), why do we need such a lot of verbiage here. Let's put this
phrase into the definition.

"...must provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible
content..."
- Here's the meat of the provision

"...for accessibility problems that the tool [[or suite]] has the
capability to correct,..."
- I don't understand this phrase: it sounds like an authoring tool can
decide not to support something, and is then relieved of all
responsibility. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, but if the format
includes a capability, surely the tools should either support it, or at
least inform users that they do not.

"...for formats authored by that tool [[or suite]]..."
- OK. This allows a product to define its features and only support the
format it supports. As above, don't need the "or suite".

"...[[which support compliance as explained in the definition of
authoring tool.]]"
- Why do we need to restate (and reference) a definition that provides
this scope (compliance with UI and content provisions) more clearly.



Here's my suggestions for both the definition and provision:

DEFINITION: AUTHORING TOOL
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. An authoring tool may be a single
product, or a suite of tools from a single vendor or multiple vendors.

Note: Simple text editors that can only create or modify content in
conforming formats by directly editing the code are not considered
authoring tools under this definition.


7-C - PROMPTS
An authoring tool must provide a mode which prompts authors to create
accessible content for formats authored by that tool.

Note 1: It is neither expected nor possible that prompts be available
for every type of accessible content.

Note 2: Authoring tools are primarily responsible for accessibility
problems that they have the capability to correct, but may provide
prompts for other problems as well.





> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 7-C Prompts (in authoring tools)
> From: Judy Brewer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Tue, March 18, 2008 1:07 pm
> To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "Sean Hayes"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "TEITAC Committee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Comments below:
>
> At 11:45 AM 3/18/2008 -0700, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> >My comments below
> ><...>
> >I'm hearing you say that the suite could made to be only defined by
> >the vendor, but if it is still evaluated against this standard we are

> >potentially requiring that vendors bundle their software with other
> >vendors even if the tool is doing what it should already. Maybe I'm
> >misreading this, but this is my concern.
>
> Please note the first three words of the proposed provision:
>
> "An authoring tool, or suite of tools used to author content, whether
> such suite is composed of tools from a single vendor or multiple
> vendors, must provide a mode which prompts authors to create
> accessible content for accessibility problems that the tool or suite
> has the capability to analyze or correct, for formats authored by that

> tool or suite which support compliance as explained in the definition
> of authoring tool."
>
> A vendor is under no obligation to bundle their software with other
> vendors' software, regardless of whether their tools do everything
> that they should. The option of a suite was there to give flexibility
> to vendors who need or want other tools to supplement the capabilities

> of their own tools.
>
> (more below)
>
> > > >An example: Adobe has a tool called Presenter. The main
function of
> > > >Presenter is to import Microsoft PowerPoint files and generate an

> > > >accessible web-based Flash presentation that utilizes
> > > >accessibility information contained in the PowerPoint file (e.g.
> > > >equivalents for images, content order). I can see contracting
> > > >officers wondering if the fact that Presenter doesn't prompt for
> > > >this information makes it not compliant - should PowerPoint
> > > >provide the prompting, or should
> > > Presenter
> > > >prompt for the information when it is missing, or should
> > > >presenter prompt for the information _always_ since it _might_
not be correct?
> > >
> > > I believe that this general issue is addressed in the following
> >phrase:
> > > "...must provide a mode which prompts authors to create
> > > accessible content for accessibility problems that the tool
> > > or suite has the capability to analyze or correct, ..."
> >
> >How do we determine if a piece of software has this ability? If a
> >tool works with an evaluation tool to examine compliance with the
> >standards is that evaluation tool now part of the authoring tool or
> >authoring tool suite?
>
> Hmmm. Restoring my subsequent text, which provided an example of this:
>
> >>As for whether the tool, when prompting, should only prompt for
> >>missing information, or also prompt for corrections, this seems
> >>strongly linked to the question of which accessibility issues the
> >>tool is capable of analyzing. For instance, if equivalents are
> >>missing for an image, it is straightforward to prompt for the
> >>missing equivalents. But if an equivalent is a single word followed
> >>by a filename extension, many authoring tools have the capability to

> >>analyze that equivalent text and prompt for something more
> >>meaningful than a filename alone.
>
> Andrew, are you suggesting the removal of "to analyze" from the text
> of this provision? Sean had suggested this wording with "analyze", but

> it does imply on-board evaluation function. By removing "analyze," it
> would remove an implied availability of an evaluation function, and
> focus more clearly on prompting for things that the tool has the
> ability to correct. This might be easier to understand, to comply
> with, and to evaluate. The proposed text would then read:
>
> "An authoring tool, or suite of tools used to author content, whether
> such suite is composed of tools from a single vendor or multiple
> vendors, must provide a mode which prompts authors to create
> accessible content for accessibility problems that the tool or suite
> has the capability to correct, for formats authored by that tool or
> suite which support compliance as explained in the definition of
authoring tool."
>
> Andrew, Sean, would this work?
>
> - Judy
>
>
>
>
> >AWK
>
>
>

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