Re: Comments on Aug 18 working draft, AU guidelines

In most cases I think these comments are editorial. Please read them, but
unless anyone wants to raise specific points or suggest better wording I
propose to incorporate changes into the next draft of the document (wednesday
night, following the meeting)

My comments mared CMN, Judy's marked JB

Charles McCN

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:

  Comments on the Aug 18 draft
  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990818/> follow, through Guideline
  4. Some of these are brief because of time constraints.
  
  Regards,
  
  - Judy
  
  AU GUIDELINES
  
  Abstract, 2p: "It is equally important that all people... It is therefore
  of critical importance ..." This sounds like banging on a drum. This is a
  spec, the contents of it should stand on their own merits. UI accessibility
  info for authoring tools is included in the document; that therefore means
  it's important. Toning this down a bit would probably give it more
  strength; right now it comes across as methinks-thou-dost-protest-too-much,
  which makes it look more questionable.

CMN I suggest we tone down the language of this statement.
  
JB
  Abstract, 2p: "Adoption of these guidelines will result..." Given that we
  can't precisely predict the future, how about "will contribute to the
  proliferation..."
CMN sure
JB
  Status, 1p: needs draft replacement text, bracketed off until it goes
  active, for the last call review statement.
CMN
Status is updated at each draft. For last call we will include text that
would be used for a proposed rec
JB  
  Introduction, 1p: "understand, and thereby reduce, accessibility barriers
  to the creation of Web content." What are accessibility barriers? A barrier
  is a barrier. I think what's meant is barriers to the creation of
  accessible Web content. That would include barriers in the tool itself.
CMN
sure
JB
  Introduction, tools list: I find this confusing. SMIL auth packages are
  included in the first bullet, but then tools that produce multimedia for
  the Web are listed separately. With word processors and desktop publishing
  packages you might want to include presentation software, spreadsheets,
  etc. For "on-the-fly conversion" you might want to include "database
  generation" or "Web content generated from databases" since some people
  miss the point of "on-the-fly conversion" and ask us why we aren't
  addressing database-generated pages in these guidelines.
CMN
SMIL authoring tools are not in fact multimedia editing tools. However I
understand that this could lead to confusion, so we should bracket them
together. I agree about tools which dynamically generate content from
databases
JB  
  Intro, 3p: "For detailed info... about the production of accessible content
  this doc... relies on..." more precisely, about _what constitutes
  accessible content_ 

  Intro, 3p: "It does design issues directly related to..." ??? It does
  _address_ issues directly related to. The subsequent list (automation,
  accessibility checking, etc.) needs an editing run for readability.
  
  Intro 3p: "directly related to accessible authoring tools" ...to
  accessibility of authoring tools
CMN
Sure
JB
  Intro 4p: Needs proofreading, and the final sentence needs an editing pass
  for readability. Would also be useful to explain that the techniques are
  informative only.
CMN
The current document does not use the term informative, as the working group
felt that it was jargon. We could add it with a definition.
JB  
  How the guidelines are organized, p1: This is confusing and inaccurate. The
  guidelines in this document don't state general principles of accessible
  design, they state general principles for development of accessible
  authoring tools that produce accessible content. How about "The guidelines
  in this document state general principles for development of...?" 
CMN
The guidelines state principles of accessible design for authoring tools,
which was intended to reduce the number of times we have to say accessible in
each paragraph. I'm happy to change it.
JB  
  Checkpoint priorities, 1p: "There are four goals" -- of what? unclear. Of
  this document? Then it's confusing to list it here, as the first item under
  "checkpoint priorities," unless given more context. Maybe this belongs
  somewhere else? As for the actual statements of goals, "The authoring tools
  is accessible" doesn't sound like a goal, but "make the authoring tool
  accessible" would, or "provide guidance to make the authoring tool
  accessible" or "ensure that the authoring tool is accessible," etc. 
CMN
suggest "The working group has 4 goals for tools which conform to these
guidelines:" Placing the goals statement here means that it is easy to relate
them to the priorities. I can't find anywhere else where they seem better in
context, and if they are somewhere else then we need to refer back to them,
which seems to create discontinuity.
JB  
  Guideline 1, 1p: "The authoring tool is a software program with standard
  user interface elements..." Not sure what this means, nor how standard some
  au tool interfaces are.
CMN
Agree that this could be tightened up. Will work out how to clarify.  
JB
  Guideline 1, 3p: The examples given do not present a cross-disability
  perspective. This is a problem. Also, the mention of specific blocks of
  "text," to the exclusion of mention of other media objects, seems narrow.
  
  1.6: Needs to be made clearer how this item relates to accessibility.
CMN
These two issues are related. The aim of the paragraph is to make it clear
that working speed is an issue of greater importance to peple with certain
disabilities (motor, visual, etc).
JB  
  GL2: "use W3C recommendations" maybe clearer to say "generate markup that
  conforms to W3C Recommendations." Also, do you really mean the term
  "standard" here? W3C Recommendations are not formal standards, in the ISO
  sense. I think you mean specification.
CMN
specification sound fine to me.
JB  
  GL2, 2.2: "Ensure that content is created in accordance with..." Do you
  mean "Ensure that markup is generated in accordance with a published..."
  That is very different, and actually possible. 
CMN
sure
JB  
  2.3. "Ensure that document markup language used enables..." I think this is
  "generated" not "used."
CMN
The emphasis is on the language in which the markup is generated. Suggest
"Use document markup languages that enable accessibility"
JB  
  GL3, 1p: "...these problems are likely to remain..." Unclear. Might as well
  be specific about what you mean.
CMN
Agree
JB  
  GL4, 3p: "professionally written" is a term that would offend some Web
  authors who have self-studied. I suggest either clarifying its usage, or
  replacing it.
  
  GL4, 4p: "This will lead to an increase in the average quality of ...."
  This sounds more like a promotional claim rather than part of a specification.
CMN These are not in the document any more.
JB  
  4.2 "...for an object whose function is known with certainity" -- what does
  that mean?
CMN That it is known for certain what the function of an object is.

Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 23:08:10 UTC