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

Re: Proposal for ATAG Checkpoint 4.X (JR Action Item)

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:58:31 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20031112095603.02233df8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

For success criteria, "at some point -during the editing session-" (add 
last part)?  Also is there any way to quantify "reasonably obvious 
way"?   Term seems somewhat subjective.

Great job!

Tim Boland NIST


Also, At 10:17 AM 11/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>Here's what I've come up with for the 4.X stuff:
>
>1. I've changed the checkpoint to make it more similar to others in GL4.
>2. I've added a new sentence to the rationale from Karen's email (marked
>by **)
>3. I've added a potential success criteria.
>
>==============================================================================================
>
>4.X Ensure that *accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and
>documentation* are integrated into the overall workflow when an author
>develops Web Content. (Priority 2)
>
>RATIONALE:
>
>Accessible design as an afterthought or separate process is much more
>onerous and therefore costly than when accessibility is considered from
>the start. *Experienced authors develop workflows, familiar and
>consistently successful routines, with their authoring tools.* If the
>authoring tool supports a workflow in which the author considers
>accessibility before and/or during the authoring process it is more
>likely that accessible authoring practices will become a common
>practice.
>
>SUCCESS CRITERIA
>
>* If the user begins a Web content editing session, performs edits that
>introduce accessibility problems, saves and then exits an editing
>session, the tool must have, at some point, intervened in a reasonably
>obvious way with one or more accessibility prompting, checking, repair
>or documentation features relevant to those accessibility problem.
>
>====================================================================================================
>
>I realize that the success criteria is a bit spartan. However, the range
>of conceivable workflows for all the different types of tools and
>operations that might be performed with them is very large. Moreover, we
>are quite clear about the need for user configurability, which
>complicates the situation.
>
>Thoughts on any of this?
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>
>--
>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 Wednesday, 12 November 2003 09:58:57 GMT

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