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

Re: Proposal to remove a checkpoint from Wombat

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:09:26 -0400
Message-ID: <3D5BD236.CD3402B8@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Charles,

I was not proposing that we make it acceptable to bury accessibility
checking deep within the interface. Instead, I was looking at Checkpoint
5.3. It requires a rough UI equivalence between functions of a tool that
do the same kinds of things (Note: The minimums for 5.2 and 5.3 are
switched in the last Wombat draft). Therefore, it prevents a tool from
having a spell checker that is 1-step away for the user, while the
accessibility checker is 4-steps away.

Unfortunately, this will break down if the other tool has done a bad job
of making its other checkers available or it does not have any other
checkers.

So perhaps I can suggest a re-wording of 5.1, that brings it more in
line with 5.3 (I think this will make it more clear that 5.3 applies to
how the functionality is made "available" to satisfy 5.1).

- ATAG Checkpoint 5.X: Ensure that functionality (prompts, checkers,
information icons, etc.) related to ATAG checkpoints 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1
are always clearly available to the user

Note 1: What about adding 4.2?
Note 2: I'm wondering how well 3.2 fits in here. It is a much less
constrained than the others - but since it is probably the area of the
techniques most in need of work, maybe that will change.

Cheers,
Jan

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I am against the proposed change. I think that the more limited set of
> features being always available (not just integrated somehow) at a higher
> priority level is something that we should keep.
> 
> Having the accessibility checking in front of the user is a good thing for
> helping users to remember to use it, and not give up because they had to look
> in a menu or four to find it.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jan Richards wrote:
> 
> >
> >I propose that we remove this checkpoint under Guideline:  Integrate
> >accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel":
> >
> >Ensure that the functionalities for checkpoints 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1 are
> >always clearly available to the user [Priority 1]
> >
> >I think the intent of the checkpoint is well covered by another
> >checkpoint that we already have (we can change its Priority if
> >necessary):
> >
> >Ensure that all functionality (prompts, checkers, information icons,
> >etc.) related to accessible authoring practices is naturally integrated
> >into the overall look and feel of the tool. [Priority 2]
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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)

-- 
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Web:   http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/~jan/jan.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 12:07:30 GMT

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