Authoring Tools Proposal 2 - June 20, 2007

Editing Authoring Tools Proposal 2 - June 20, 2007

1. WAS: 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.
   • UPDATED: (no updated wording yet, but possibly go back to...) Authoring tools must have the ability to produce content which passes the electronic content provisions.
   • BECAUSE: (need info on electronic content provisions, and more on-list discussion on this one.)
   • DISCUSS: On list.
   • PROPOSED: Authoring tools must preserve accessibility information necessary for meeting the electronic content provisions unless the user explicitly indicates otherwise.
2. WAS: Authoring tools must provide a mode so that any content that can be generated by the tool without requiring author input will pass the electronic content provisions
   • UPDATED: (same, unless one of the following is an improvement)
   • BECAUSE: At our last teleconference it was requested that a rewording of this be attempted without the restriction of "mode" or "provide a mode." I believe that the most direct rewording of this without the "provide a mode" restriction would be:
     • "Any content that can be generated by an authoring tool without requiring author input must be able to pass the electronic content provisions." If "generated by" cannot be interpreted to include "converted by," then perhaps that rewording would work; but if not, the requirement would not be feasible since converted content would not always include the necessary accessibility information. Possible alternative re-wordings then would be:
     • "With the exception of conversion tools, any content that can be generated by an authoring tool without requiring author input must be able to pass the electronic content provisions." OR:
     • "Authoring tools must, with the exception of conversion tools, ensure that any content that can be generated by the tool without requiring author input will pass the electronic content provisions."
     • DISCUSS: Are any of the possible re-wordings in the "Because" section above an improvement over the "Was" version above, which includes the phrase "must provide a mode"?
3. WAS: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a default mode which prompts authors to create accessible content.
   • UPDATED: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must prompt authors to create accessible content, unless the default mode is to produce accessible content.
   • BECAUSE: It was noted that prompting does not make sense where the default mode already results in production of accessible content.
   • DISCUSS: Does this wording work?
4. WAS: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems.
   • UPDATED: For authoring tools with a user interface, authoring tools must either provide a mode which assists authors in checking for accessibility problems, or interoperate with evaluation tools that provide that function.
   • BECAUSE: Kept separate so far from #4 because emphasis in #4 now on required prompting or default, and because there is still on-going discussion as to on-board evaluation function vs interoperability with evaluation tools.
   • DISCUSS: Does this wording work?
5. 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: 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.
   • BECAUSE: It was suggested that this be a "must" rather than a "should"; but it was also noted that this requirement would not make sense for some kinds of authoring tools, such as those which convert existing content. Also, clarifications were requested on the meaning of "pre-authored content".
   • DISCUSS: (1) Are the examples of "pre-authored content" sufficient, and do they belong in the provision, or as explanatory notes following the provision? (2) Several people have expressed concerns about the testability of this provision, including a question about whether the provision should specify how many templates, or how much facilitation, should be provided. Is this provision sufficiently testable?
6. WAS: Authoring tools should give prominence to the most accessible authoring action for achieving an authoring outcome.
   • UPDATED: (same)
   • 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 bedropped, and that "most accessible authoring action" is not testable.
   • DISCUSS: Is the intent of this provision to ensure that accessible authoring actions are not buried in the tool interface, and if so, isn't this at least partially addressed by #4, meaning that this could be dropped?
   • 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?