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

Accessibility default settings ...

From: Heather Swayne <hswayne@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:08:46 -0700
Message-ID: <3C3175FCC945D211B65100805F1580890D3D22A5@RED-MSG-07>
To: Authoring Tools Guidelines List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: "'Gregory J. Rosmaita'" <unagi69@concentric.net>, "'love26@gorge.net'" <love26@gorge.net>, "'charlesmccn@yahoo.com'" <charlesmccn@yahoo.com>
I request a poll or vote to see were the other members of the Authoring
Tools Working Group stand on this issue:

Does an Authoring Tool comply with guideline 3.1 if the default setting of
their accessibility option is set to "no-prompting"?
Assuming:
1) Guideline 3.1 requires authoring tools to "prompt" (confront the user
with a dialog that would allows them to enter alt+text) at some time between
an image being inserted and the document being saved (saving does not
guarantee that the author has finished the editing process but it is the
first time that a user could potentially interact with the page and would
therefore would need to be compliant with Web content guidelines). 
2) An authoring tool implements a "configurable" solution (allows authors to
choose/set the level of prompting ranging from no-prompting to force me to
make corrections as soon as an accessibility related error is detected).
 
Asking the author questions during setup is not a reliable solution since we
cannot guarantee that the author (owner of the computer) has explicit
control over the setup of the computer (computers come pre-installed with
applications, a friend or IT professional could sets up the computer for the
author, a company could perform a silently install/upgrade or lock down the
installation preferences).

I have an outstanding action item to submit a proposed definition for
prompting, but if the majority of the Authoring Tools working group feels
that the answer to the above question is "yes", then I will agree that
authoring tools came comply with guideline 3.1 as currently defined, but
will submit a request to include this example within the techniques
document. 

Related comments on this area:
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory J. Rosmaita [mailto:unagi69@concentric.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:04 PM

as for "out-of-the-box" prompts and alerts, the user could choose/set the
level of prompting during the installation routine, provided that -- if the
user chooses "No Prompts or Alerts", he or she is presented with a "Readme"
type dialog box/application window, before the installation process ends,
in which (a) the benefits of checking for accessibility, (b) the means of
checking for accessibility available through the tool, and (c) how to turn
them on, off, and configure them are explained _in full_ to the user...  i
would also argue that in order to comply, you would have to provide a
warning and a "more information" button when the user who has turned off
all accessibility checking issues the "Save" command, as well as a "Fix It
Now" mechanism (which i would prefer to "see" on the dialog that pops up
when the user who has disabled all of the accessibility
checking/prompting/alerting features of the tool off, rather than as part
of the "More Information" interface, but that is, i suppose an
implementation decision...


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charlesmccn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:33 AM

In the discussion about whether or not a tool conforms out of the box,
I would follow the precedent set by Wendy Chisholm's evaluation of
HotMetal, in which she said that in accessibility mode the tool
conforms, and I would regard that as a conforming tool (subject to the
provisions of guideline 5).


-----Original Message-----
From: love26@gorge.net [mailto:love26@gorge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 3:59 PM

HS:: "Any tools that followed this suggestion would not be single-A
compliance "out-of-the-box", unless the accessibility option was set to
force prompts."

WL: I believe that this misunderstanding is at the root of a problem we
are experiencing. The configurability *INCLUDING THE DEFAULT SETTINGS OF
THE VARIOUS ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES* does not affect the conformance
level of the tool. That is my understanding.

If the tool makes all the important features an integral part of the
regular look/feel, (even though these features may be set to "off" by
the user) it can be triple-A conformant - even if it is "shipped" in a
default mode that some insensitive sales/marketing department has
decided is the "best practice" for their customers.

Even though many will have the opinion that: people don't want
"in-your-face" warnings when they're creating Web materials; surveys
show that these features aren't important to most purchasers - the
market for accessible (for which read "usable") sites and especially
tools that are easily able to create such sites is much larger than
expected.
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 18:09:29 UTC

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