W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Definition of Prompt

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:56:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004191554460.2404-100000@tux.w3.org>
I would prefer us to use the more common definition of prompt, that it
requires author response, with the proviso that a prompt can have multiple
parts, for example the different pieces of stuff required for an image, or
can cover a multitude of things, for example "there are accesibility errors
in this document - save anyway?"

Charles

On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Jutta Treviranus wrote:

  In discussing the issue of what is a prompt and what would constitute 
  compliance with guideline 3.1, it becomes apparent that we have a 
  contradiction in our documents. In both (Guideline and Technique) 
  Glossary of Terms and Definitions sections we have the following 
  definition:
  
  "A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a 
  decision. A prompt requires author response. For example, a text 
  equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an image insertion 
  dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts can be used to encourage 
  authors to provide information needed to make content accessible 
  (such as alternative text equivalents). "
  
  Which seems contradictory in and of itself.
  
  This is complicated by the technique text following guideline 4 where 
  we speak of prompts in the following terms:
  
  "Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information 
  needed to make the content accessible (such as alternative text 
  equivalents). Prompts are simple requests for information. For 
  example, a text equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an 
  image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts are 
  relatively unintrusive and address a problem before it arises. 
  However, once the author has ignored the prompt, its
  message is unavailable."
  
  We seem to be suggesting that on the one hand prompts require an 
  author response and on the other hand that they are relatively 
  unintrusive and are instruments of encouragement.
  
  I think the spirit of what we want is that prompts should provide 
  noticeable encouragement without demanding immediate author response. 
  Therefore I suggest we delete the sentence "A prompt requires author 
  response" from both Definition sections. I also suggest that we 
  delete the sentence "However, once the author has ignored the prompt, 
  its
  message is unavailable" from the technique section, given that that 
  is not always the case with our broader definition of prompt. In the 
  technique document we also need to make it clear that we are not 
  adhering to the restrictive definition of prompt used in several 
  software development toolkits but a broader definition of prompting.
  
  Jutta
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 15:58:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:44 UTC