W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Wombat Checkpoint Reordering Proposal

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207221633490.31426-100000@tux.w3.org>

Right - it seems to me clear that ATAG and XAG have intersting parallels but
are not doing the same job. For example, XAG doesn't talk much about
interfaces for authoring tools, and where it does, as in checkpoint 4.8
"Document techniques for WCAG, ATAG, and UAAG with respect to the XML
application" it refers to ATAG as the W3C Recommendation on the subject. (No
relative priority because there are no priorities in XAG).

But yes, the feature I liked most was the way that it seemed to suggest
clearer ways for creating and dealing with techniques.

Cheers

Chaals

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jan Richards wrote:

>
>Charles,
>
>There do seem to be parallels between ATAG and XAG and these should be
>investigated - but ATAG does go further than XAG in specifying the
>relationship between tools and authors.
>
>By the way:
>
>An interesting side effect of the reordering proposal is that it helps
>to explain why we were having such trouble coming up with
>categorizations for our implementation techniques...
>...we were trying to categorize techniques written at differing
>conceptual levels.
>
>For example:
>- Tier 1 (enable accessibility) techniques are probably most
>appropriately divided by FORMAT TYPE (i.e. "consider using SVG for
>graphics"), whereas
>- Tier 2 (support accessibility) techniques are probably most
>appropriately divided by the TYPES OF ACCESSIBILITY PRACTICES ("i.e.
>here's how to prompt for or repair short labels vs. long text
>descriptions"), whereas
>- Tier 3 (integrate accessibility features) techniques are most
>appropriately divided by the USER INTERFACE METAPHOR employed (i.e.
>"here's how to integrate prompts of different kinds into a text-based
>editor vs. a WYSIWYG editor").
>
>Perhaps this will lead us to a different categorization scheme for each
>"Tier"?
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> I like it.
>>
>> I am wondering if there is some paralell with the XML accessibility
>> guidelines - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML - which are in many ways about
>> using XML as a specific tool for a certain type of authoring.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jan Richards wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Hello all,
>> >
>> >Recent AUWG discussions of implementation and evaluation techniques for
>> >Wombat seem to reveal shortcomings in the ordering of the guidelines. In
>> >an attempt to rectify this, I (with some help from Matt May) am making
>> >the following reordering proposal:
>> >
>> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2002/07/22-wombatreorder.html
>> >
>> >---
>> >
>> >The primary thrust of the proposal is to organize the seven guidelines
>> >into four "Tiers" that will build successively upon the ones before.
>> >
>> >- Tier 1 includes those guidelines that address ways to ENABLE
>> >accessible content production, but which do not actively support or
>> >promote it (from the author perspective).
>> >=> Implementation Techniques for these guidelines involve reference to
>> >W3C language recommendations and to WCAG.
>> >
>> >- Tier 2 builds upon Tier 1 by including those guidelines that address
>> >ways to actively SUPPORT accessible content production by prompting,
>> >checking and documenting.
>> >=> Implementation Techniques for these guidelines general strategies
>> >(see Prompting appendix), the AERT, and general themes in WCAG.
>> >
>> >- Tier 3 builds on Tiers 1 and 2 by addressing the manner in which the
>> >Tier 1 and 2 checkpoints should be integrated with the tool.
>> >=> Implementation Techniques for these guidelines involve User Interface
>> >integration ideas.
>> >
>> >- Tier 4 builds upon Tiers 1, 2 and 3 by addressing the accessibility of
>> >the user interface of the tool, as a whole.
>> >=> Implementation Techniques for these guidelines involve third-party
>> >platform-specific guidelines as well as access-friendly authoring
>> >interface mechanisms.
>> >
>> >*NOTE 1*: This step-upon-step approach is the way that I tend to explain
>> >the document to others. But up until now, it was not made explicit by
>> >the document structure.
>> >
>> >*NOTE 2*: Grouping the "Guidelines" into "Tiers" means that the wording
>> >of guidelines may remain essentially the same as it was in ATAG 1.0. The
>> >checkpoints will likely still need to be fine-tuned.
>> >
>> >---
>> >
>> >Several minor changes were required for the reordering to work:
>> >
>> >- The order of Guidelines 1 and 2 will need to be switched to place the
>> >choice of output format and the production of valid markup first, as
>> >precursors for the rest of the ATAG requirements.
>> >
>> >- The order of Guidelines 5 and 6 will need to be switched, since
>> >Guideline 5 (dealing with integration) is actually a modifier for
>> >Guideline 6 (dealing with documentation) in the current Wombat draft.
>> >
>> >- Note that checkpoint 5.1 is now numbered 6.X. This was done because I
>> >believe the checkpoint is now unnecessary.
>> >
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Jan Richards
>
>User Interface Design Specialist
>Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
>University of Toronto
>
>@: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>P: (416) 946-7060
>F: (416) 971-2896
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 16:37:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:01 GMT