W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2004

Issue #1: 1. Definitions needed for a number of terms

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:33:32 -0500
Message-ID: <1075232012.4016bd0cb994e@webmail.utoronto.ca>
To: karen@mardahl.dk
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca

Hi everyone,

This is a reply to Karen's message (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-
wai-au/2004JanMar/0026.html). I've changed the subject to help us track the 



KM: ?? Already in place in Glossary under "Accessible" - so I don't think is
necessary as a separate entry. One instance of this word combination does
link to "Accessible" in Glossary.

JR: Agree with KM that this is already part of definition of 
term: "Accessibility"



KM: ?? Isn't this covered in "GUIDELINE 2: Ensure that the tool is designed to
produce accessible content: This guideline requires that authoring tools
must generate standard markup and support accessible authoring practices".
"Accessible Authoring practices" is in the Glossary. Not clear if practices
and methods are considered 2 different animals?

JR: I couldn't find the term, do we still use it?



KM: ??

JR: Those WCAG checkpoints that could reasonably to applied to the web content 
produced by an authoring tool. A WCAG checkpoint is "not applicable" only if 
the authoring tool lacks the capability to produce content that could fail the 
checkpoint. However, the inability of an authoring tool to pass a checkpoint 
does not make the checkpoint "not applicable".



KM: For the purposes of this document, an author is a user of an authoring tool




KM: For the purposes of this document, this refers to the controls and
mechanisms of the tool used by an author to produce content.

JR: The means by which an authoring tool is operated by an author.



KM: Checking refers to built-in mechanisms in the authoring tool that bring
accessibility problems to the author's attention through some form of
notification. Notifications can take various forms as described in ATAG
Checkpoint 3.2. Checking can be considered a reminder of corrections that
should or must be made.

JR: The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems.



KM: ?? I couldn't find the reference in ATAG 2.0 and I am guessing that this
refers to the Dublin Core somehow. dublincore.org doesn't even have a def
for this term in their glossary even though phrases like making info
"discoverable and accessible" abound in relation to DC. Doesn't this make
this just a regular dictionary term, and thus perhaps unnecessary for the

JR: Agreed. 



KM: ?? Sound like a code term: It returned an exception code. Isn't this a
rather technical term that might be specific to programmers and coders, and
a bit too "granular" for our purposes? Couldn't find what may have caused
this to be mentioned as a glossary term.

JR: Agreed. I couldn't find it in the draft.



KM: ??

JR: Any graphic that an author can select to receive additional information.



KM: ??

JR: Do we still use this term? CP4.1 deals with the subject matter.



Repairing refers to correcting, completing, deleting, or replacing whatever
elements are giving accessibility problems. Suggested methods for dealing
with repairs are described in ATAG Checkpoint 3.3.

JR: The process by which web content, identified as an accessibility problem, 
is modified (corrected, completed, or deleted) so that no accessibility 
problem remains.



KM: Informative suggestions and examples of how a checkpoint can be satisfied. 
(Definition inspired by UAAG - I added this word because I really didn't see
it stand out and get explained anywhere. Thought of non-native English

JR: Informative suggestions and examples for ways in which the success 
criteria of a checkpoint might be satisfied.



KM: For the purposes of this document, a typical author is defined as the user
of the authoring tool who concentrates on preparing the content of a
document and who relies on the tool for editing, styling, and formatting

JR: A typical author is a hypothetical individual who possesses levels of 
authoring knowledge, tool proficiency, and experience with accessibility 
issues that fall at the mean of the levels measured from a large random sample 
of actual users of an authoring tool.



KM: The entire sequence of steps or tasks that are followed to produce a





JR: A format is WCAG-capable when a WCAG techniques document that explains how 
to meet each applicable WCAG checkpoint has been published and explicitly 

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

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca 
  Phone: 416-946-7060 
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:38:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:49 UTC