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


From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:15:24 -0400
Message-Id: <p04310113b52d021e0d6c@[]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Regarding yesterday's teleconference, can people confirm the following:

- we agree that we need to create an errata to change the definition 
of "prompt" in the "Glossary of Terms and Definitions" section of the 
Guidelines. There are inconsistencies in the definition itself. We 
have not decided what the change will be although Phil has proposed 
that we change the word "requires" to "requests" in the sentence "A 
prompt requires author response."
- we agree that we need to make the meaning of the guideline clear 
and explicit in the techniques but we do not have a compelling reason 
to change the wording of the guideline itself.
- we agree that prompts should be on an author configurable schedule, 
that they should be consistent with the look and feel of the 
application and that the author can actively choose to cancel the 

The issues we need to address are:
1. - does "prompt the author" mean that the software initiates a 
request for information at some point in the authoring process that 
the author is compelled to respond to or cancel
does software comply with the guideline if the request is present and 
visible but need not be responded to and could be avoided when 
certain authoring strategies are used (Phil's loophole)?
2. Should the author be able to turn off all prompts in a single step?

We need to clearly distinguish what the additional requirements are 
in 3.1 beyond the requirements in guidelines 4 and 5 relative to 
equivalent alternative information.

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 17:06:15 UTC

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