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

Re: Prompts

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:36:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004261734450.19486-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jan Richards wrote:

some stuff I also agree with.
JR  
  > 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
  > or
  > 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)?
JT  
  I tend to agree with Phil, although I think the whole "pop-up in your
  face" discussion may have been too black and white.  For instance, a
  developer could get around the problem of explicit prompting by adding a
  short alert (icon and explanatory text) to a pre-existing save or
  publish dialog.  In this scenario, the author is already being
  interrupted with a request for information ("enter file name", "confirm
  write over", confirm publish to web", etc.) and an accessibility warning
  could be added without necessitating extra mouse clicks. 
CMN
I had a look back over the minutes and drafts for August/september last
year. It seems we had agreed that a prompt could be part of another
prompt. We also agreed that the wording of the checkpoint would be prompt,
not alert/inform (as per 4.1) and that a prompt required some kind of
response.
JR  

  > 2. Should the author be able to turn off all prompts in a single step?
JT
  Not for a universal (all future pages) setting.
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 17:39:00 UTC

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