Revision history for WikkaAccessibility


Revision [22997]

Last edited on 2016-05-20 07:38:44 by JavaWoman [Replaces old-style internal links with new pipe-split links.]
Additions:
If it's already the case (which I doubt), we should add this accessibility conformance to the list of our [[Docs:WikkaFeatures | features]].
But any system that **generates** HTML based on end-user input would have a very hard time to attain full [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ | WCAG 1.0]] AAA-level compliance for its output. The first requirement for accessibility is valid (X)HTML - but most HTML is generated based on Wikka markup: how do we ensure that results in valid XHTML? A simple nesting error in the Wikka markup could result in the same nesting error in XHTML. Worse, we allow people to **embed** HTML - how are we going to ensure the embedded HTML is valid (let alone conforms to the stated document type in the DOCTYPE declaration)? One option might be to run all code through HTMLtidy but even that has its limitations.
It would probably be better to distinguish between Wikka's user interface itself (or at least the default version out of the box) and how Wikka deals with user input to generate page content. Any system that generates HTML should not only conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ | WCAG 1.0]] (if the system is implemented in HTML) but also [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ | ATAG 1.0]] (because any wiki - as well as any blog and any CMS - is an authoring tool). [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ | ATAG 1.0]] has guidelines for the system's interface itself as well as for how an authoring tool takes care that it creates code that conforms to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ | WCAG 1.0]].
By distinguishing between the Wikka user interface itself (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ | WCAG]]) and how Wikka works as a code-authoring tool (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ | ATAG]]) it will actually be easier to evaluate where we are and to improve upon that.
There are conformance "buttons" for [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ | ATAG]] as well (I also fixed the alt text of these examples and made them into valid XHTML):
~-[[http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)]]
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ | Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ | Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]
Deletions:
If it's already the case (which I doubt), we should add this accessibility conformance to the list of our [[Docs:WikkaFeatures features]].
But any system that **generates** HTML based on end-user input would have a very hard time to attain full [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] AAA-level compliance for its output. The first requirement for accessibility is valid (X)HTML - but most HTML is generated based on Wikka markup: how do we ensure that results in valid XHTML? A simple nesting error in the Wikka markup could result in the same nesting error in XHTML. Worse, we allow people to **embed** HTML - how are we going to ensure the embedded HTML is valid (let alone conforms to the stated document type in the DOCTYPE declaration)? One option might be to run all code through HTMLtidy but even that has its limitations.
It would probably be better to distinguish between Wikka's user interface itself (or at least the default version out of the box) and how Wikka deals with user input to generate page content. Any system that generates HTML should not only conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] (if the system is implemented in HTML) but also [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] (because any wiki - as well as any blog and any CMS - is an authoring tool). [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] has guidelines for the system's interface itself as well as for how an authoring tool takes care that it creates code that conforms to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]].
By distinguishing between the Wikka user interface itself (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG]]) and how Wikka works as a code-authoring tool (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG]]) it will actually be easier to evaluate where we are and to improve upon that.
There are conformance "buttons" for [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG]] as well (I also fixed the alt text of these examples and made them into valid XHTML):
~-[[http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)]]
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]

Revision [18455]

Edited on 2008-01-28 00:11:40 by JavaWoman [Modified links pointing to docs server]
Additions:
If it's already the case (which I doubt), we should add this accessibility conformance to the list of our [[Docs:WikkaFeatures features]].
Deletions:
If it's already the case (which I doubt), we should add this accessibility conformance to the list of our [[WikkaFeatures features]].

Revision [8681]

Edited on 2005-05-29 11:00:50 by JavaWoman [move to subcategory]
Additions:
CategoryDevelopmentDiscussion
Deletions:
CategoryDevelopment

Revision [7650]

Edited on 2005-04-26 18:54:26 by JavaWoman [adding samples of ATAG conformance buttons]
Additions:
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>""
By distinguishing between the Wikka user interface itself (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG]]) and how Wikka works as a code-authoring tool (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG]]) it will actually be easier to evaluate where we are and to improve upon that.
There are conformance "buttons" for [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG]] as well (I also fixed the alt text of these examples and made them into valid XHTML):
""<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10A-Conformance"
src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/atag10A"
W3C-WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10AA-Conformance"
src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/atag10AA"
W3C-WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10AAA-Conformance"
src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/atag10AAA"
alt="Level Triple-A conformance icon,
W3C-WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" /></a>""
Deletions:
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></a>
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></a>
W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></a>""
By distinguishing between the Wikka user interface itself (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]]) and how Wikka works as a code-authoring tool (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]]) it will actually be easier to evealuate where we are and to improve upon that.

Revision [7646]

Edited on 2005-04-26 16:38:06 by JavaWoman [ypot]
Additions:
It would probably be better to distinguish between Wikka's user interface itself (or at least the default version out of the box) and how Wikka deals with user input to generate page content. Any system that generates HTML should not only conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] (if the system is implemented in HTML) but also [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] (because any wiki - as well as any blog and any CMS - is an authoring tool). [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] has guidelines for the system's interface itself as well as for how an authoring tool takes care that it creates code that conforms to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]].
Deletions:
It would probably be better to distinguish between Wikka's user interface itself (or at least the default version out of the box) and how Wikka deals with user input to generate page content. Any system that generates HTML should not only conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] (if the system is implemented in HTML) but also [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] (because any wiki - as well as any blog and any CMS) is an authoring tool). [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] has guidelines for the system's interface itself as well as for how an authoring tool takes care that it creates code that conforms to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]].

Revision [7645]

Edited on 2005-04-26 16:36:49 by JavaWoman [explanation, proposal, added reference]
Additions:
===Attaining Accessibility conformance===
alt="Level A conformance,
alt="Level Double-A conformance,
alt="Level Triple-A conformance,
--DarTar
===How to get there===
Thanks for bringing this up, DarTar.
**No, it's not.**
But any system that **generates** HTML based on end-user input would have a very hard time to attain full [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] AAA-level compliance for its output. The first requirement for accessibility is valid (X)HTML - but most HTML is generated based on Wikka markup: how do we ensure that results in valid XHTML? A simple nesting error in the Wikka markup could result in the same nesting error in XHTML. Worse, we allow people to **embed** HTML - how are we going to ensure the embedded HTML is valid (let alone conforms to the stated document type in the DOCTYPE declaration)? One option might be to run all code through HTMLtidy but even that has its limitations.
It would probably be better to distinguish between Wikka's user interface itself (or at least the default version out of the box) and how Wikka deals with user input to generate page content. Any system that generates HTML should not only conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]] (if the system is implemented in HTML) but also [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] (because any wiki - as well as any blog and any CMS) is an authoring tool). [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]] has guidelines for the system's interface itself as well as for how an authoring tool takes care that it creates code that conforms to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]].
By distinguishing between the Wikka user interface itself (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ WCAG 1.0]]) and how Wikka works as a code-authoring tool (which should conform to [[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ ATAG 1.0]]) it will actually be easier to evealuate where we are and to improve upon that.
Maybe a separate page listng each of the items in each of the two guidelines, together with where we stand for each of those, could help us attain as high a level of conformance as humanly possible.
--JavaWoman
=== References ===
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]
Deletions:
alt="Level A conformance icon,
alt="Level Double-A conformance icon,
alt="Level Triple-A conformance icon,
== References ==

Revision [7570]

Edited on 2005-04-25 10:44:38 by DarTar [a proposal to our Standards Compliance Department :)]
Additions:
If it's not, we should try to see what changes are needed to attain the highest possible level.
Deletions:
If it's not, we should try to see what changes are need to attain the highest possible level.

Revision [7569]

Edited on 2005-04-25 10:43:51 by DarTar [a proposal to our Standards Compliance Department :)]
Additions:
== References ==
~-[[http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)]]
~-[[http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0]]

Revision [7568]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2005-04-25 10:42:19 by DarTar [a proposal to our Standards Compliance Department :)]
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki