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: whitneyq@wqusability.com
Date: Wed, Mar 19 2008 7:45 AM

"A toolset used to author content"? That sounds like the definition, not the term. What do we gain by replacing a simple term with a tongue twister? Will simple tools think they are excluded?

I agree with the point about an HTML editor handing video. I completely agree with your point. But you are assuming that an authoring tool can only prompt for something it can then execute. There's no reason why the prompt can't include the option of captioning the video EVEN IF that particular authoring tool doesn't support captions. If the term "toolset" is critical to you, perhaps:

DEFINITION: AUTHORING TOOL
Any software or toolset intended to create or modify electronic content for publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user interface and content provisions. Such tools 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 in formats authored by those tools, for accessibility problems that the tool can correct. Tools may provide prompts for other problems as well.

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

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 7-C Prompts (in authoring tools)
> From: Sean Hayes < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Wed, March 19, 2008 6:20 am
> To: TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> I'm Ok with rolling the suite/vendor idea into the definition, if we change the term to something like "a toolset used to author content".
>
> I'm not OK with making the scope phrase a note. The issue is exemplified by a tool which combines content (say an HTML editor), where it is possible to drag a video onto the page, but the tool has no ability to edit or analyse the video. The HTML tool can be expected to prompt for a text alternative but not to add captions, or check for potential seizure inducing Flashes
>
> Based on that, I could live with something like:
>
> DEFINITION: TOOLSET USED TO AUTHOR CONTENT
> 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. Such tools 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
> A Toolset used to author content must provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content for formats authored by those tools and for accessibility problems that the tools have the capability to correct.
> Tools may provide prompts for other problems as well.
>
> Note 1: It is neither expected nor possible that prompts be available for every type of accessible content.
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Media Acessibility Strategist
> 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 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: 19 March 2008 12:20
> 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