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

Re: Prompts

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:49:13 -0500
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568D3.005FB90E.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>

Jan wrote:
" ... 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."

I have never seen additional warning added to the "save" prompt.  For
example, I don't recall seeing any warnings/prompts for misspelled words,
missing tags, or invalid markup type things when I save the document I'm
editing.  I have seen the option for checking valid markup, spelling, etc.,
but I as the user still choose to be warned.  Saved only prompted me for
what was necessary - the file name - and if it prompted me for more I feel
it would be problematic due to ease of understanding.  Generally prompts
are harder to use when they have multiple purposes.  As I said in the last
call, if the tool has some known "loop-hole" then there should be some
indication, status message, warning light, or something that alerts the
author of accessibility errors, but doesn't unnaturally prompt the author
inconsistent with the user interface design of the tool.

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

PJ: That's how I remember it also.  The issue is whether a tool is
compliant if it has "loop holes".  I think it can be because of the others
words in the guideline 3 such as:
     "Support the creation..." not force or ensure or guarantee
     "without constraining the creativity of the author."
     "authoring tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automate
the mechanics..."
     "at appropriate times ..."
     "tool can assist"
     "tool can reinforce"

> 2. Should the author be able to turn off all prompts in a single step?

I do NOT like that wording -  of being able to turn off all prompting in a
single step, but I do like the idea of having an accessibility menu option
that can be selected and used or not.  If the user wants to "turn off"
accessibility prompting then the integration probably wasn't done
correctly.  Having a button to turn off bad integration/design is not a
good technique.

Phill Jenkins
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 13:27:00 UTC

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