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

Re: please review and comment

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:05:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
cc: w3C-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.9912100302021.23632-100000@tux.w3.org>
As I recall the discussion, the idea that an author would be familiar with
the language produced by the tool was implicitly rejected in the majority vie
of the working group that an author cannot be expected to know the nuts and
bolts, only how to use a tool. I know almost nothing about Word's binary
encoding, and nearly nothing about RTF. But I am quite happy to use a tool to
produce them, and hope that the tool knows what I need to do and makes me do
it.

So I am not going to add the "language" phrase in the draft I am about to
do. This can be discussed on list if it is in fact an issue.

Charles

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Jutta Treviranus wrote:

  One proposal raised by Phill that we did not have time to address in
  yesterday's meeting was his proposal regarding relative priority and
  applicability text. Could everyone review this and comment to the list
  before Friday.
  
  Phill wrote:
  
  >From the definitions of priority:
  >
  > as part of relative priority:
  >
  >  All authoring tools should support all applicable Web Content Guideline
  >  checkpoints, but the nature of that support may vary according to the
  >  nature of the authoring tool, the expected skill level of the author
  using
  >  the tool, and the requirements of each WCAG checkpoint. In some cases
  >  support can be provided automatically, without the need for explicit
  author
  >  participation, in other cases human judgment is required and support is
  >  provided by the tool in the form of prompts and documentation.
  >
  > and as a general not on priorities:
  >
  >  In choosing priority levels for checkpoints, the Working Group has
  assumed
  >  that "the author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of
  the
  >  authoring tool, and that the author has no prior knowledge of
  >  accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have read all
  of
  >  the documentation but is expected to know how to turn to the
  documentation
  >  for assistance.
  
  I would remove much of the paragraph under "relative priority", because it
  deals more with "applicability".  "applicability is being covered nicely
  with each checkpoint and a general paragraph may add to the confusion.  I
  would replace both paragraphs about with this one:
  
  <PJ proposal 1.1[*]>:
  In assigning priority levels for checkpoints, "the author" or user of the
  tool is assumed to be aware of the language supported, to be a competent,
  but not necessarily an expert, user of the tool, and to have only a nominal
  knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have
  read all of the documentation packaged with the tool, but is expected to
  know how to turn to the integrated help and documentation for assistance.
  
  [*]I deleted the first sentence and fixed some grammar from my earlier
  post...
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins,
  

--Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Friday, 10 December 1999 03:06:34 UTC

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