Issues for ATAG 2.0 Working Draft

This document provides a guide to issues which are yet to be resolved, as well as those which have already been resolved, by the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG). It will be maintained through the life of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 document, and updated regularly as new issues are raised or resolved.

Issues for Guidelines

Unresolved

7. There may be insufficient attention paid to Web-based authoring environments

(GD's Comment attached to reply by CMN, 13 Dec 2003)
Decision:

8. Should the conformance scheme be modified to add extra conformance levels.

(BF's proposal) (Discussed at Austin F2F)
Decision:

Resolved

1 - R. Definitions needed for a number of terms.

(TB's list, 13 Jan 2004) (KM to make proposal, 26 Jan 2004) (Discussion, 2 Feb 2004) (JR's summary, 8 Feb 2004)
Decision: All terms defined or dropped (by Feb 19-20 F2F)

2 - R. Concept of "typical user" in success criteria may be unclear.

Appears in success criteria for checkpoint 4.1
(Concept introduced by JT, 25 June 2003) (Problems raised by TB, 26 Sept 3003) (KM to make proposal, 26 Jan 2004) (Discussion, 2 Feb 2004) (JR's summary, 8 Feb 2004)
Decision: "typical user" defined in Issue 1.

3 - R. Concept of a "usability STUDY override" to normative requirements for conformance (success criteria) still undecided (connected with idea of typical user)?

(JR Raises, 22 Sept 2003) (Problems raised by TB, 26 Sept 3003) (Discussed by group, 9 Feb 2004)
Decision: Discussions and proposal by JR ended with rejection of this concept, (19,20 Feb 2004)

4 - R. Functional spec or usability-oriented guide? Is ATAG a document that specifies programmatic requirements, or one that directs the outcome (related to usability override)?

(Raised by MM, 26 Sept 2003 in Seattle) (Discussed by group, 9 Feb 2004)
Decision: Functional spec (19,20 Feb 2004)

5 - R. Where will Definition of Authoring Tool example images "live" (in the guidelines or techniques) - currently they have been moved to the techniques?

Raised by JR. (KM to make proposal, 26 Jan 2004) (JR proposal for new 4 category definition, 27 Jan 2004) (Discussion, 2 Feb 2004) (JR's updated proposal, 9 Feb 2004)
Decision: In the guidelines with new definitions

6 - R. Handling non-W3C formats - Rationale and success criteria of 2.2

(Discussed, 26 Sept 2003 in Seattle) (Joint discussion with WCAG-WG, 24 Oct 2003) (JR's proposal, 27 Jan 2004) (JR-KM Disucssion, 14 Feb 2004)
Decision: JR's proposal with slight modifications (19,20 Feb 2004)

8 - R. New editorial additions require group approval.

(various places in the document) - to be handled at F2F
Decision: All issues before Austin F2F (19,20 Feb 2004) addressed.

9 - R. How do we deal with changes to the WCAG conformance levels that may impact ATAG's relative priority checkpoints?

Decision: Use a separate "ATAG 2.0 References to WCAG" document that we intend to publish as a W3C Note when ATAG 2.0 becomes a Recommendation.

10 - R. "Opt-out" policy on accessibility? (Turn off accessibility features, rather than turning them on)

(Raised by GP, 26 Sept 2003)
Decision: Agreed to require accessibility features be enabled by default but suggest ability for author to opt-out (turn them off).

Issues for Implementation Techniques

Unresolved

2. What form of document presentation will work best for listing the techniques?

(KM's comment) (JR's proposal, 17 Nov 2003)
Decision:

3. How does the new techniques document work with the old icon-based approach of ATAG 1.0 techniques?

(Raised on call, 17 Nov 2003)
Decision:

4. Checkpoint 4.X (4.2) is still lacking techniques

(Added at Seattle F2F, 26 Sept 2003 ) (JR's proposed wording, 7 Nov 2003) (JR's sample workflow, 4 July 2003)
Decision:

5. New editorial additions require group approval.

(various places in the document)
Decision:

Resolved

1 - R. Can ATAG implementation techniques link to ISO16071

(TB's analysis of linking to ISO1071 vs. IBM-SAG ver.3.1) (Matt May (Staff contact) reported than W3C comm group agreed to the external reference)
Decision: Group would prefer to link to ISO16071 (Agreed - 15 Dec 2003).

Issues for Test Suite

Unresolved

1. How to make use of and expand TB's draft test plan

(TB's testing principles document, 14 May 2003) (TB's proposal, 5 Jan 2004)
Decision:

2. Test case development in conjunction with WCAG-WG?

(Joint discussion with WCAG-WG, 24 Oct 2003)

Resolved

Last updated $Date: 2004/02/25 18:24:24 $ by Jan Richards (jan.richards@utoronto.ca)

Copyright © 1998 - 2003 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.