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

JR's May 8 Action Items

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:13:37 -0400
Message-ID: <3F676EF1.20A87CD2@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

==================================================================
ACTION ITEM: Look into removing "likely" from success criteria.
==================================================================

Only used in success criteria for 4.1, as follows:

WAS:

1. If accessibility prompting (see Checkpoint 3.1), checking (see
Checkpoint 3.2), and repairing (see Checkpoint 3.3) functions are not
already active by default, the mechanism for activating them must be
available to the author at all times during authoring and, at most, one
level down in the user interface (e.g. in the first level of a drop-down
menu). 

2. The configuration mechanism (i.e. preferences, options, etc.) for
these accessibility-related functions must be designed so that typical
authors searching for the configuration mechanism will be LIKELY to find
it and that typical authors performing general configuration tasks will
be LIKELY to notice the configuration mechanism. 

3. When these accessibility-related functions are combined with other
authoring functions (i.e. one accessibility-related field in a general
purpose dialog box), the y must be designed so that typical authors
searching for the function will be LIKELY to find it and that typical
authors performing other general purpose tasks will be LIKELY to notice
the function. 

PROPOSAL:

1. If accessibility prompting (see Checkpoint 3.1), checking (see
Checkpoint 3.2), and repairing (see Checkpoint 3.3) functions are not
already active by default, the mechanism for activating them must be
available to the author at all times during authoring and, at most, one
level down in the user interface (e.g. in the first level of a drop-down
menu). 

2. The configuration controls for these accessibility-related functions
must be a full part of a general configuration area, if one exists.

3. If no general configuration area exists, the configuration controls
for these accessibility-related functions must be handled in the same
manner as configuration controls for other functions.

4. When these accessibility-related functions are combined with other
authoring functions (i.e. one accessibility-related field in a general
purpose dialog box), the resulting design must include the
accessibility-related controls in the highest level of the combined user
interface. 


==================================================================
ACTION ITEM: Look into a "usability over-ride" for success criteria (for
checkpoints in Guideline 4)
==================================================================

PROPOSAL:

4.1 Usability Study Alternative to Success Criteria:

When prompted to find them, typical authors are able to locate
accessibility-related prompting, checking, repair functions and
documentation from several representative states of the tool.

4.2 Usability Study Alternative to Success Criteria:

When prompted to perform an authoring task, typical authors tend to
locate the more accessible means, provided by the tool, for
accomplishing that task.

4.3 Usability Study Alternative to Success Criteria:

When prompted to guess which features in a tool are designed by a "third
party developer", typical authors do not tend to identify
accessibility-related prompting, checking, repair functions and
documentation any more frequently than other features of the tool.


-- 
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/richards.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 16:13:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:02 GMT