Please read, review and comment as directed in the announcement below. This
is an opportunity to provide feedback on how we get the results of an
accessible web since a huge number of sites are developped through the use
of authoring tools.
Johnnie Apple Seed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Brewer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "WAI Interest Group" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:18 AM
Subject: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) has reached Last
Call Working Draft status. It will be under review until 18 January 2005.
Information on the document and how to comment follows. The document is
available at:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
WHAT IS ATAG 2.0?
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series
of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI). The other guidelines in this series include the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines (UAAG).
ATAG 2.0 provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower
barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring
tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by
providing an accessible authoring interface to authors with disabilities,
as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible
Web content by all authors.
WHAT DOES "LAST CALL" MEAN?
A Last Call Working Draft announcement means that the Working Group
believes that it has satisfied its technical requirements and dependencies
with other W3C Working Groups. The Working Group believes that the Working
Draft has stabilized. It seeks a broad review of ATAG 2.0 during this
period, and expects to request advancement to Candidate Recommendation
(where the focus of review will be on implementation testing) after this
Last Call review is completed. More information on the W3C Process is
available at:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
HOW CAN I COMMENT?
Please send comments to the following address by 18 January 2004. Note that
this is an extension from the deadline for comments which is listed in the
document:
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>org
A public record of comments is available at:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>au/
Review and send comments on the following Last Call Working Draft:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
You may find the following overview helpful for context:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag
In addition, an updated Working Draft of a supporting document,
Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0, is available for review, though it
is not in Last Call status:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20041122/
The Working Group is particularly interested in discussion of the following
questions:
1. Does this document include the features that you think are necessary
in an authoring tool that is accessible and that supports authoring of
accessible content? Are the priorities of the checkpoints appropriate?
2. Is this document easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, and can it be
applied to a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0?
( http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 )
3. Has the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft reached the right balance between
giving developers freedom to work creatively to meet the guidelines, while
at the same time developing objective success criteria for each checkpoint?
4. This document references another accessibility standard, ISO 16071,
which provides guidelines for software and operating system accessibility.
Unlike W3C, ISO charges a fee for its documents. In this case, the document
costs 110 Swiss francs, or about US$90. Is it reasonable to reference this
document?
5. Authoring tool makers who claim conformance to ATAG must declare in
their conformance statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 1.0
and/or WCAG 2.0. Is this a useful approach? Is this explained adequately in
the document?
WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE LAST WORKING DRAFT?
Since the last Working Draft of ATAG 2.0, the following changes have been
made:
- References to specific sections of the ISO 16071 software
accessibility guidelines have been added.
- Old Checkpoints 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have been merged into a New
Checkpoint 2.1.
- Checkpoint 3.4 (care reusing generated alternate content) has been
raised to Priority 1.
- Checkpoint 3.8 (features related to accessibility) has been lowered to
Priority 3.
- New Checkpoint 3.9 (Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible
authoring) has been added.
- Checkpoint 4.1 has been reworded and moved to New Checkpoint 4.3.
- Wording of checkpoints have been modified to be more easily testable.
- Checkpoint success criteria, conformance level information, and
glossary terms are much more detailed.
NOTE: This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful
to avoid cross-postings.
Thank you in advance for your review.
Regards,
Matt May, Team Contact for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
Working Group
Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C
--
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-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
