W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Comments on Guidline 1

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:15:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3E3941A6.6A30A2C6@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Here's my take on Bob's comments:

> Guideline 1
> First, what is the distinction between 'conventions that are essential to accessibility' and conventions that are 'important to accessibility'. Is this defined in terms of features required for the creation of accessible content (add alt text as a simple example) or more general features of the tool that are essential to using the tool (such as saving a document).

Not exactly. Guideline 1 is a bit of a strange beast. It has little to
do with authoring accessible content per se, but rather concerns the
accessibility of the tool to authors with disabilities - whether they
want to create accessible content or not. Checkpoint 1.1 is analogous to
a checkpoint in WCAG 1.0, where the priority is determined by whether
the checkpoint is considered to be essential, important or beneficial to
accessibility. Of course in WCAG, the priority is set by the WCAG
authors. In our guidelines, we leave it to the developer to decide -
which may be problematic (to say the least). Perhaps we should look at
using a simpler system, such as that used by IBM for their software
guidelines (http://www-3.ibm.com/able/accesssoftware.html). Given that
this is the first checkpoint that developers see, it definitely has the
potential to colour the way they see the rest of the document.

> Second, a simple point. Under point 4 of 'Following Standards', the doc reads, "Use standard system indirections and APIs whenever possible." Do you mean 'indications'?

No, in this technique (T0252) we meant "indirection" - although it is
not very clear - we should rephrase. We were trying to say: "use the
system way of doing things (so assistive technologies will have access
to them) rather than custom hacks." :)

> Third, given the topsy-turvy world of accessibility api layers, some discussion of when self voicing applications are appropriate would be helpful.


> Fourth, in several places, the techniques document requires configurability with respect to color, size, sound. Should these options be configurable from within the authoring tool or is it enough to ensure they interoperate with the accessibility options of the operating system? For example, should Dreamweaver offer a high contrast setting or should we ensure Dreamweaver interacts well with the various high contrast settings of the operating systems it supports?

In my opinion it is preferable to interoperate with platform-wide
utilities when these are available (e.g. the high contrast settings on
Windows95+, CloseView on the Mac OS7+).

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:48 UTC