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

Re: DreamWeaver and WAI

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Sho Kuwamoto <sho@macromedia.com>
cc: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910011322590.8373-100000@tux.w3.org>
Thanks for your comments and time Sho.

I will forward your remarks (they're not too late). 

1.1 and 1.2 are similar, except that they refer to different documents (1.1
refers to "whatever there is", with some suggestions for particular languages
in the techniques document, while 1.2 refers specifically to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines.

Cheers

Charles

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Sho Kuwamoto wrote:

  Hi Charles.
  
  Please feel free to forward my remarks to the list (I hope it's not too late).  I haven't had time to give more specific examples, but an example of how the language could be made more clear/specific up is:
  
  OLD: Produce content that conforms to w3c's web content accessibility guidelines
  NEW: The authoring tool should provide a way to author content which conforms to
       the w3c's web content accessibility guidelines.
  
  Of course, at this point, Guideline 1.2 seems very similar to guideline 1.1
  
  -Sho
  
  >Sho,
  >
  >thanks for taking the time. This is indeed valuable review. Can you post it
  >to w3c-wai-au@w3.org or can I forward it with your permission?
  >
  >The answer in fact to your question is that c) and d) would both conform to
  >this checkpoint. however d) would cause the tool to fail the checkpoints in
  >guideline 5. A tool that does c) will then have to put more time into
  >assisting the author catch and correct problems - checkpoints 4.1 and 4.2
  >
  >With respect to the difference in priorities between 1.4 and 4.3 I will raise
  >that as an issue for the working group to address.
  >
  >Can you be more specific about how the language should be tightened up?
  >The theory is that this is a self-assessed claim. I expect that a number of
  >example reviews (there are now a couple linked from
  >http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tools if you want to see them) being available will
  >lead to people being able to compare their decisions to other peoples'.
  >
  >Cheers, and thanks
  >
  >Charles McCN
  >
  >On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Sho Kuwamoto wrote:
  >
  >  Ok. It's not a thorough review, but here are some thoughts:
  >  
  >  I realize that this is structured as a set of guidelines and not a formal
  >  spec, which means that language will be less specific, but...
  >  
  >  As I read the guidelines, I find that I'm having trouble deciding whether
  >  our tool meets the guidelines or not.
  >  
  >  Would it make sense to tighten up the language? Or would this screw up
  >  the readability?  With tighter language, it will be easier to understand
  >  which vendors comply and which do not.  As a result, there would be a
  >  greater chance that vendors will feel pressure to comply (complaints from
  >  customers, etc.)
  >  
  >  
  >  --- For example, guideline 1.2 says "Produce content that conforms to
  >  w3c's web content accessibility guidelines". Which of the following
  >  scenarios satisfies this criterion?
  >  
  >     a) All content produced by the authoring tool conforms to the
  >  accessibility guidelines. It is impossible to make non-conforming
  >  content.
  >  
  >     b) By default, the content produced by the authoring tool conforms. It
  >  is possible to make non-conforming content, but the author must choose
  >  this explicitly.
  >  
  >     c) It is possible to make conforming content, although the author must
  >  take an explicit action to make this happen (e.g., choose a menu option
  >  that says "use accessible markup").
  >  
  >     d) It is possible to make conforming content, but it is very difficult
  >  (e.g., a visual editor might force an author to edit source code by
  >  hand).
  >     
  >     e) It is not possible to make conforming content except in a few
  >  distinct cases.
  >  
  >  Scenario (a) clearly qualifies, while scenario (e) clearly does not.
  >  Scenario (b) probably qualifies.  Does scenario (c)? My gut feeling is
  >  yes, but I'm not sure. What about (d)? My gut feeling is no, but I'm not
  >  sure. In fact, what's the difference between (c) and (d)? Is it clear
  >  from the spec that (c) is acceptable while (d) is not?
  >  
  >  --- For me, this is the single biggest issue in the spec. I've tried to
  >  go through the spec and point out specific issues, but it all boils down
  >  to the same thing.  For each recommendation, I can't tell if our tool
  >  meets the guideline or not.
  >  
  >  Also.. why is Checkpoint 1.4 a Priority 1 checkpoint, while 4.3 is a
  >  Priority 2? Shouldn't they both be equal? I propose they both be priority
  >  1.
  >  
  >  
  >  --- That's it for now. Wish I had more time, but I hope I've helped in
  >  some way. Good luck on your work!
  >  
  >  -Sho
  >  
Received on Friday, 1 October 1999 13:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC