RE: Getting started on the comments: #21 & #22

On 15 May 2006, Michael Cooper wrote about comment #21 (now 498):
<quote>
Jason suggests changing, for 2.5.3 [1], in the part "Actions are checked
for input errors before going on to the next step in the process", that
"process" be replaced with "task". He says this is particularly relevant
if his comment about 2.4.2 "Are there "processes" which are not "tasks"
for purposes of this criterion?" is accepted. I'm inclined to accept his
comment, but we should coordinate with the team working on 2.4.2.
</quote>

Maybe this is a question of word choice rather than definitions.
When you register as a user of an application (or as a client of an
e-commerce application), or when you enter orders, etc., I would call
these things "processes" rather than "tasks" from a user's point of
view, even if they may be called "tasks" from a developer's point of
view (e.g. when writing use cases etc.). This would be an argument
in favour of "process", but not a strong one.



On 15 May 2006, Michael Cooper wrote about comment #22 (now 499):
<quote>
Jason asks, for 2.5.4 [2], "Should "context-sensitive help" be defined
in terms of "the task, or the step in the task, currently being
performed"? This would require it to be specific to the over-all task
while allowing individual steps in a task to have their own help items."

I'm not clear if he's suggesting we change the SC, or the definition of
context-sensitive help [3]. I personally think it's best if there's
wiggle-room about what degree of specificity context-sensitive help must
have, and therefore would like to leave the SC as is. But we could
update the definition to read "help text that provides information
related to the <del>function</del><ins>task, or step in the task,</ins>
currently being performed".

Issue 1771 [4], also from Jason, dealt with this, and changes were made.
I guess Jason is requesting even more clarification, but we could treat
this as "already raised and answered" if we want.
</quote>

As far as I can remember, we added the exception ("content [that]
is not the result of, or a step in, a process or task") because some processes
are performed by following steps in a specific order, with each web unit
for each step. But context-sensitive help is also required for web units
that are not part of such a process. The wording of the definition of
"context-sensitive help" should not give the impression, e.g. by similarity
in wording, that 2.5.4 only applies to the processes that are excepted in
2.4.2. Or is the danger that I see here too far-fetched?

Regards,

Christophe


[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html#minimize-error-reversible
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html#minimize-error-context-help
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html#context-sensitivehelpdef
[4] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1771



-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 10:21:40 UTC