Thread Subject: Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring tools

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring tools

This proposal incorporates additional suggestions and combines some
provisions.

(Specific notes: #1 combines 1 & previous 3 using Allen's language
following list discussion; #2 already received provisional approval; #3
combines previous 4 & a version of 5 that allowed meeting evaluation goals
by interoperability; #4 updates previous 6 with suggestions received;
"giving prominence to" is dropped in this set; "Web" is dropped in this
version of the definition of authoring tools as there has been no negative
feedback on that question.)

#1. For each accessible content format supported, authoring tools must
allow the author to produce content, including content derived from
programmatic sources, that meets applicable electronic content
accessibility standards.

#2. Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary for
meeting the electronic content provisions, unless the user explicitly
indicates otherwise.

#3. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide
a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content; and either a
mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems, or
interoperability with evaluation tools that provide that function.

#4. Authoring tools which provide pre-authored content, or templates to
facilitate production of content, must provide at least one version that
meets applicable electronic content accessibility standards.

[DEFINITION] "Authoring Tool" means "...any software, or collection of
software components, that authors use to create or modify content for
publication."

Regards,

- Judy


--
Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring tools

These look great; a couple of quick thoughts.

For number 1. Can we do a definition of programmatic sources?

For number 2, Can we add a "such as" clause after "accessibility
information" , e.g., such as table headers, labels for images, . . .

For number 3, do we need a definition for "interoperability?" If no
tools exist, we at least need to know what it means for the authoring
tool to potentially have interoperability.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Judy
Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:03 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring
tools

This proposal incorporates additional suggestions and combines some
provisions.

(Specific notes: #1 combines 1 & previous 3 using Allen's language
following list discussion; #2 already received provisional approval; #3
combines previous 4 & a version of 5 that allowed meeting evaluation
goals by interoperability; #4 updates previous 6 with suggestions
received; "giving prominence to" is dropped in this set; "Web" is
dropped in this version of the definition of authoring tools as there
has been no negative feedback on that question.)

#1. For each accessible content format supported, authoring tools must
allow the author to produce content, including content derived from
programmatic sources, that meets applicable electronic content
accessibility standards.

#2. Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary
for meeting the electronic content provisions, unless the user
explicitly indicates otherwise.

#3. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content; and
either a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility
problems, or interoperability with evaluation tools that provide that
function.

#4. Authoring tools which provide pre-authored content, or templates to
facilitate production of content, must provide at least one version that
meets applicable electronic content accessibility standards.

[DEFINITION] "Authoring Tool" means "...any software, or collection of
software components, that authors use to create or modify content for
publication."

Regards,

- Judy


--
Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring tools

Hi Don,

At 10:16 AM 6/27/2007 -0400, Barrett, Don wrote:
>These look great; a couple of quick thoughts.
>
>For number 1. Can we do a definition of programmatic sources?

From previous thread
http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=5441&listid=3
see definition of "programmatically determined" from WCAG 2.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef

which defines this as:
"determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way
that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract
and present this information to users in different modalities"

and which includes the following examples:
"Determined in a mark-up language from elements and attributes that
are accessed directly by commonly available assistive technology."
and
"Determined from technology-specific data structures in a non-mark-up
language and exposed to assistive technology via an accessibility API that
is supported by commonly available assistive technology."

Our previous language for this provision in this Web/software thread used a
different formulation of this concept, which might require less
explanation, if it is sufficiently precise for this authoring provision,
perhaps we should return to that:
"...any content that can be generated by the tool without requiring
author input"

>For number 2, Can we add a "such as" clause after "accessibility
>information" , e.g., such as table headers, labels for images, . . .

I've been wondering about the inclusion of this type of example information
in our provisions. I'd tried it w/ the 20 June version of the provision on
"pre-authored content" because of the recurring questions on that item...

[draft of that provision from last week was "Authoring tools with a user
interface must provide templates that
facilitate production of accessible content, and pre-authored content (such
as buttons and form components) that is accessible."]

...however I'd gotten the impression from some discussion that it was
better to leave examples out of the main provisions. I agree with you that
clarifications of what we mean by "accessibility information" in provision
#2 may be needed, given the questions that have come up about this
provision on the list. Can someone clarify what our general practice in the
TEITAC provisions will be regarding explanatory text included in or
following any of the provisions, so that we can be consistent with that
practice?

>For number 3, do we need a definition for "interoperability?" If no
>tools exist, we at least need to know what it means for the authoring
>tool to potentially have interoperability.

I'm looking for that. I note that the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft use
"interoperability" and "interoperate" a number of times without defining
them. UAAG 1.0 does the same. WCAG 2.0 Working Draft addresses a related
concept partly through the principle of robustness -- though via the
perspective of interpretation of content -- as "...interpreted reliably by
a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies." Can we
include this as is, or include it provisionally and continue to work on a
definition?

Regards,

- Judy

>
>Don
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Judy
>Brewer
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:03 AM
>To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal (updated 27 June) on authoring
>tools
>
>This proposal incorporates additional suggestions and combines some
>provisions.
>
>(Specific notes: #1 combines 1 & previous 3 using Allen's language
>following list discussion; #2 already received provisional approval; #3
>combines previous 4 & a version of 5 that allowed meeting evaluation
>goals by interoperability; #4 updates previous 6 with suggestions
>received; "giving prominence to" is dropped in this set; "Web" is
>dropped in this version of the definition of authoring tools as there
>has been no negative feedback on that question.)
>
>#1. For each accessible content format supported, authoring tools must
>allow the author to produce content, including content derived from
>programmatic sources, that meets applicable electronic content
>accessibility standards.
>
>#2. Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary
>for meeting the electronic content provisions, unless the user
>explicitly indicates otherwise.
>
>#3. For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must
>provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content; and
>either a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility
>problems, or interoperability with evaluation tools that provide that
>function.
>
>#4. Authoring tools which provide pre-authored content, or templates to
>facilitate production of content, must provide at least one version that
>meets applicable electronic content accessibility standards.
>
>[DEFINITION] "Authoring Tool" means "...any software, or collection of
>software components, that authors use to create or modify content for
>publication."
>
>Regards,
>
>- Judy
>
>
>--
>Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium
>(W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
>32 Vassar Street
>Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
>
>