Re: Idea for Guideline 3 or 5

Responses in JRG:
At 03:56 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>The Authoring Tool Accesiblity Guidelines are not intended to be used as
>guidelines for authoring by people who know nothing or very little about
>markup languages - that is the role of the Web Content Guidelines and the
>various instructional materials based on them.

JRG: I don't think my message indicated that the authoring tool guidelines
were for people who did not understand markup, my comments were intended to
have checkpoints related to authors who do not understand markup.  

>
>Making the document seem more like it would suit such people as a substitute
>for WCAG would be a grave error, since it would provide a false security, at
>the expense of being useful for developers trying to create accessible
>authoring tols, and people who are trying to understand the requirements for
>an accessible tool. In particular, the guidelines explicitly require
>knowledge of the WCAG (in order to fulfil checkpoint 1.2 - the group has
>decided to have no techniques for that checkpoint lest anybody mistakenly
>think that they were a substitute for knowing the requirements).
>
>One of the intended groups of people using the guidelines (one of the more
>important ones if people are going to continue to create their own content)
>is developers of tools which can be used by people who know nothing about
>markup languages. 

JRG: BINGO!  I think this is one area that the guidelines should be very
strong, with strong supporting checkpoints.  The majority of web content is
being developed by people with little or no understanding of the markup
language.  Developers of tools should build into there tools (maybe through
configuration) different levels of support of adding accessibility information.

I think my comment relates most directly to checkpoint 3.1.  It would be
nice to have that checkpoint or another checkpoint highlight the need to
guide the author through creating accessible content.

Checkpoint 6.2 seems to hint at this but seems to be more of a totorial
function

However that is not the only audience. checkpoints such as
>4.2, 5.2 and 6.2 are intended to address the need for tools which may or may

JRG: For 5.2 why not just have a list of highest priority features to
implement for accessible authoring.  

>not presume any knowledge of markup. In a tool like HomeSite which is a
>source-code editor it is perfectly reasonable to guide the author with help
>and checking, and allow them to edit the source code however they wwant to.
>It is not reasonable to expect source-code editing as a way of meeting P1
>WCAG requirements in a WYSIWYG tool, which is the kind of tool that may be
>being used by someone with no markup knowledge, and it would in fact
>contravene checkpoint 5.1. If no help were provided, in either case, it would
>contradict checkpoint 4.2.
>
>So while the techniques you suggest are extremely valuable, I think they
>should not be incorporated as checkpoints. (In any case, this will be
>discussed by the Working Group).
>
>cheers
>
>Charles McCathieNevile
>
>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>
>  I think this approach is short sighted if this is truely the operational
>  model of the working group.  I think that there are more and more people
>  generating HTML that have no concept of HTML markup.   Tools that can guide
>  the user to add appropriate accessibility information without the user
>  understanding the markup is going to be critical if Web Content is going to
>  become more universally accessible.  I remember Damiel telling a story at
>  the first WAI meeting several years ago about a person giving an HTML
>  authoring workshop at one of the WWW conferences that did not even know the
>  fundamentals of HTML makrup language.
>  
>  I think the guidelines should at least discuss these types of techniques in
>  the techniques document.  I would hope there would be more direct
>  references in the checkpoints and guidelines.
>  
>  Jon
>  
>  
>  
>  At 12:54 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>  >This approach is based on a particular model of user interaction where the
>  >user is expected not to deal with the markup. In fact many of the most
>  >popular authoring tools are markup editors, and directing the user away
from
>  >the markup is counter to their whole interface, and would therefore
>  >contravene guideline 5 (integrate accessibililty into the overall look and
>  >feel).
>  >
>  >Guidelines 4 and 6 should cover the necessary requirements in the type of
>  >interface you are suggesting, and your suggested scenario would be a 
>valuable
>  >addition to the techniques for the relevant checkpoints. Thank you again...
>  >
>  >cheers
>  >
>  >Charles McCN
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>  >
>  >  The techniques talk alot about allow the author to edit the markup.
While
>  >  this important and useful it would be, I think just as important to
>  >  emphesize prompting the user for functional information and hiding the
>  >  underlying markup as much as possible.  Fo exampel when inserting an
image
>  >  the tool could ask author not just for the ALT text and LONGDESC url.
 But
>  >  ask them first the purpose of the image, is it a:
>  >  1. Decorative logo
>  >  2. Image of person, place or thing
>  >  3. Chart or graph
>  >  4. Button or link
>  >  ....
>  >  
>  >  The dialog would route the author to the appropraite accessibility
>  >  questions related to the purpose of the image.  The ALT and LONGDESC for
>  >  IMG or the proper OBJECT markup would be generated based on the answers 
>and
>  >  questions the people were asked during the dialog.
>  >  
>  >  Could this approach be highlighted in the text of checkpoint?
>  >  
>  >  Jon
>  >  
>  >  Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>  >  Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>  >  Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
>  >  Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>  >  University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>  >  1207 S. Oak Street
>  >  Champaign, IL 61820
>  >  
>  >  Voice: 217-244-5870
>  >  Fax: 217-333-0248
>  >  E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>  >  WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>  >  		http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>  >  		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
>  >  
>  >
>  >--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
>  >phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
>  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>  >MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
>  
>  Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>  Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>  Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
>  Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>  University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>  1207 S. Oak Street
>  Champaign, IL 61820
>  
>  Voice: 217-244-5870
>  Fax: 217-333-0248
>  E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>  WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>  		http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>  		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
>  
>
>--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
>phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
		http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 1999 09:49:24 UTC