Authoring Tools Proposal 1 - June 12, 2007

Editing Authoring Tools Proposal 1 - June 12, 2007

1. WAS: Authoring tools must have the ability to produce content, which passes the electronic content provisions.
   • UPDATED: Authoring tools must have the ability to produce content, which passes the electronic content provisions for each content format that individual tools are capable of producing.
   • BECAUSE: Otherwise one wouldn't necessarily get accessible content options for the full range of formats that a tool was able to produce (noted by Jim Tobias).
   • DISCUSS: Is the additional wording sufficiently clear, and does the additional specificity help or hurt the intent of this provision?
2. WAS: Authoring tools must, except by explicit user action, preserve accessibility information necessary for meeting the electronic content provisions.
   • UPDATED: Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary for meeting the electronic content provisions unless the user explicitly indicates otherwise.
   • BECAUSE: Improved readability (suggestion by Sailesh)
   • DISCUSS: Do we need to specify that this is for accessibility information "imported into, assembled by, or produced by a tool" or is it sufficient, or perhaps even better, to leave the source of the accessibility information unspecified? (from exchange between Jim T and Judy)
3. WAS: Authoring tools must allow the author to augment automatically-generated content with accessibility information.
   • UPDATED: Authoring tools must provide a mode in which any content that is specified exclusively by the authoring tool must be accessible.
   • BECAUSE: This provision was drawn by the small group out of an ATAG provision which stated: "Ensure automatically generated content is accessible," because, if accessibility is not taken into account at the time of content generation, it is difficult for humans to go back later and retrofit that content. So the original proposal (the "WAS" version above) does not address the same concern which ATAG was addressing. The rewording proposed here (the "UPDATED" version above) attempts to address the original problem more clearly and directly (from explanation by Jan Richards).
   • DISCUSS: Does the proposed updated text capture the more essential need?
4. WAS: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
   • UPDATED: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a default mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
   • BECAUSE: (1) There were some requests to drop "authoring tools with a user interface," however, not all authoring tools have a user interface -- for instance, unattended, automated tools that operate on content. If prompting is required as a feature within all authoring tools, this would result in a requirement that could not always be met (from discussion between Peter, Sailesh, Sean, others). (2) A few people noted that "prompts" may be inadequate. Recommendations included "forced," though others noted problems with that; or required production of accessible content with prompting only being used to address ambiguities, but it is unclear how this would be determined (from discussion between William, David, Peter.) This updated proposal instead adds "default" before "mode" (from discussion between Jim T and Judy).(3) It was also noted that "prompting" may be insufficiently clear (from comments by Kate W.)
   • DISCUSS: Does "provide a default mode" work here? Is the term "prompting" sufficiently clear?
5. WAS: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems.
   • UPDATED: (none yet)
   • BECAUSE: There was debate about whether authoring tools should be required to provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems, or whether it should be sufficient for authoring tools to interoperate with evaluation tools. If "authoring tool" is defined as "software or a collection of software components" (as in ATAG 2.0), then perhaps any products used together (e.g., base tool and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor, image editor, validation tool) would count regardless of whether there's formal collaboration between product developers... in which case, does this provision make any sense? It was also suggested that this requirement be a "should" instead of a "must," or that it be dropped. But it was also noted that authoring tools already have spelling, syntax and grammar checking built in, and that we can get standalone tools for them as well.
   • DISCUSS: Should authoring tools be required to provide a checking mode, and if so, how do we best interpret and capture that requirement?
6. WAS: Authoring tools, when providing templates or other pre-authored content, should provide templates that facilitate production of accessible content, and pre-authored content that is accessible.
   • UPDATED: (none yet)
   • BECAUSE: It was suggested that this be a "must" rather than a "should" (William). It was suggested that the ability for authors to also create accessible templates should be included in this provision (from Kate W.), however isn't this already possible in most tools that have collections of templates? A clarification was requested for "pre-authored content" -- the description of this in ATAG is "Pre-authored content, such as templates, images, and videos,..." It was also suggested to specify that authoring tools should provide pre-coded accessible objects such as buttons, tables, templates, CSS files, form components (from Katie). A clarification was asked regarding "how many of the templates, how much facilitation?"
   • DISCUSS: (1) Should this be required instead of advised? (2) Is "pre-authored content" sufficiently clear? (3) Can this provision be made testable?
7. WAS: Authoring tools should give prominence to the most accessible authoring action for achieving an authoring outcome.
   • UPDATED: (none)
   • BECAUSE: A clarification was requested for "prominence," and was provided from ATAG 2.0. It was suggested that this be changed from "should" to "must"; but conversely it was suggested by several people that this be dropped.
   • DISCUSS: Keep or drop?
   • DEFINITION: Several people asked and others discussed the definition of authoring tools. The following definition was drawn from ATAG 2.0: "...any software, or collection of software components, that authors use to create or modify Web content for publication." It was also suggested that this definition be broadened beyond Web-related authoring tools.
   • DISCUSS: Does this definition work for authoring tools within TEITAC? Does the definition still work if "Web" is dropped?