W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Wombat Subtext 3.1, 3.2, 3.1, 3.2

From: Heather Swayne <hswayne@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:39:52 -0700
Message-ID: <B7E0BEA478EBC24EBB2CF19F710760230170F176@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I'm going to raise my standard red flag about the use of "prompt" in
guidelines 3.1.
 
The terminology "This checkpoint requires authoring tools to ask for..."
seems to go against our definition of prompt as defined in the attached
e-mail dated 5/31/2000...
"In this document "prompt" is used as a verb meaning to urge, suggest
and encourage.  Prompting is thus more than checking, correcting, and
providing help and documentation as encompassed in guidelines 4, 5, 6,
and is something that does not depend on the author, but is initiated by
the tool."
 
I would also like to state a disagreement with using statements like the
following "Note that although this checkpoint has a relative
priority, some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply." -- developers will want to know exactly
which guidelines do not apply.
 
Suggestion for the minimum requirement for 3.2 -- support CSS.
 
Heather Swayne
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Richards [mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:37 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Wombat Subtext 3.1, 3.2, 3.1, 3.2
 
Hello all,
 
Here are some ideas for subtext:
 
NOTE: I am still working on 3.2. Any ideas?
 
3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information
(e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts
for video). [Relative Priority] 
 
This checkpoint requires authoring tools to ask for (and support the
creation of) alternate text, captions, auditory descriptions, collated
text transcripts for video, etc. at times appropriate to the author-tool
interaction. At minimum, when any applicable non-text objects (see WCAG)
are inserted by the tool, a means for adding the alternative information
should be provided. More advanced implementations might provide special
authoring facilities that automate some of the process of generating
alternative information (ex. voice recognition to produce collated text
transcripts). Note that although this checkpoint has a relative
priority, some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
 
3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information
from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
 
This checkpoint is a special case of Checkpoint 1.3 and Checkpoint 5.2.
that highlights structured content and independence between information
and presentation as critical accessibility requirements. At minimum,
???. More advanced implementations might ???. Note that although this
checkpoint has a relative priority, some checkpoints in the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
 
3.3 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse
previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except
when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
 
This checkpoint prohibits authoring tools from generating potentially
meaningless equivalent alternatives, such as the object's file name, by
default. The function of an object may be "known with certainty" when
the object is placed by the tool for a specific purpose or the user has
defined a purpose. For example, if a tool automatically generates a
navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable to propagate
the text equivalent(s) for images that link to searching, the table of
contents, etc. At minimum, when a new object is inserted and the
function is unknown, the tool should prompt the author to enter an
appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a default entry.
More advanced implementations might offer, as a default entry, a human
authored equivalent that has previously been associated with the object
by the author or within a prepackaged directory for the tool (ex. clip
art gallery). Refer also to checkpoint 1.4 and checkpoint 3.4.
 
3.4 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative
equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]
 
This checkpoint requires encourages authoring tools to implement
management systems for alternative equivalents in order to simplify
their use. At minimum, the system should store associations between the
multimedia objects and alternatives created by the author, allowing the
author edit the alternatives and reuse them easily. More advanced
implementations might collect alternatives from a variety of sources
(the author, prepackaged, the Web) and provide powerful tools for
managing the associations, including search functions and object
similarity estimates.
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
Cheers,
Jan
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 
Jan Richards
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
University of Toronto
 
jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Tel: (416) 946-7060  Fax: (416) 971-2896
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 


attached mail follows:


This doesn't really look like a definition - more of an explanation. I
am not
sure how it would work, but in any event, I would suggest the following
edit:

  Prompt:

In this document "prompt" is used as a verb meaning to urge, suggest and
encourage.  Prompting is thus more than checking, correcting, and
providing
help and documentation as encompassed in guidelines 4, 5, 6, and is
something
that does not depend on the author, but is initiated by the tool.

The form and timing that prompting takes can be user configurable.

------------------
I would cut the following text out, although the information should be
in the
explanatory text of guidelines 3 and 4.

The goal of prompting the author is to encourage, urge and support the
author
in creating meaningful equivalent text without causing frustration that
may
cause the author to turn off access options.

Prompting should be implemented in such a way that it causes a positive
disposition and awareness on the part of the author toward accessible
authoring practices.

-----------------
This leaves a problem of not really defining what a prompt is - it
becomes
relative to what the developer has done to satisfy the requirements of
guideline 4,5,6 - in short, it rewards people for only minimally
satisfying
them, since that lowers the bar for satisfying 3.1.

Charles McCN



On Tue, 30 May 2000, Jutta Treviranus wrote:

  Here is the proposed definition of prompt. It incorporates what we 
  have agreed upon. Please comment and edit:
  
  Prompt:
  In this document "prompt" does not refer to the narrow software sense 
  of a "prompt," rather it is used as a verb meaning to urge, suggest 
  and encourage. The form and timing that this prompting takes can be 
  user configurable. "Prompting" does not depend upon the author to 
  seek out the support but is initiated by the tool. "Prompting" is 
  more than checking, correcting, and providing help and documentation 
  as encompassed in guidelines 4, 5, 6. The goal of prompting the 
  author is to encourage, urge and support the author in creating 
  meaningful equivalent text without causing frustration that may cause 
  the author to turn off access options. Prompting should be 
  implemented in such a way that it causes a positive disposition and 
  awareness on the part of the author toward accessible authoring 
  practices.
  
  Jutta
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409
134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2001 22:45:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:00 GMT