W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Issue with Checkpoints 2.7.1 and 2.7.2

From: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:20:29 GMT
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFB424AEC.76BD27F9-ON8525674D.0046E658@lotus.com>
     After the tele-conference it hit me as to why I felt uncomfortable
with checkpoints 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.  First, let me put these checkpoints in
my own words to be sure I'm understanding their intent correctly:

2.7.1:  [Priority 1] The authoring tool should have explanations of its
accessible authoring practices in its help system(s) (context sensitive
help, on-line documentation, hardcopy documention, etc.).

2.7.2:  [Priority 2] The authoring tool should have explanations of it's
accessibility features clearly called out in each help topic. (example:
help discussion for adding an image also describes how to add alt text)

     If my understanding of these is correct, then satisfying 2.7.2, a
specific way of integrating with help, satisfies 2.7.1, the more general
help requirement.  This means that it's easy for the authoring tool
developer to satisfy a P1 and skip the P2, not a good thing I think.

     I propose a general principle for checkpoints is to make them as
disjoint as possible.  When they're not disjoint we need to be more careful
in assigning priorities.

     Some ideas for fixing this particular case are:

     1)  Make 2.7.2 a technique for 2.7.1
     2)  Eliminate 2.7.2 and:
          2.1)  Expand 2.7.1 to call out each part of the authoring tools
help systems and how accessible authoring practices should be integrated.
          2.2)  Create seperate checkpoints for each help system that
prescribe integration.
     4)  Give 2.7.2 a priority 1.

I lean to number 1.

-- Bruce
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 09:16:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC