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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:57 GMT