- From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:16:34 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
In response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0037.html. Comments included with each definition. Some are quite fine by both me and Jan. Other comments by Jan prompted a few comments or questions from me. Get your votes in otherwise you are stuck with what Jan and I work out!! :-) regards, Karen -----Original Message----- Sent: 27. januar 2004 20:34 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 issue. ==================================== ACCESSIBLE CONTENT - drop? ==================================== ACCESSIBLE METHOD - drop? ==================================== APPLICABLE WCAG REQUIREMENTS (JR: "OR CHECKPOINTS") 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 CONCLUSION: Change Glossary term to APPLICABLE WCAG CHECKPOINTS and definition suggestion (slight adjustment to JR's proposal: Those WCAG checkpoints that could reasonably be applied to the web content produced by an authoring tool. A WCAG checkpoint is "not applicable" only if the authoring tool <em> lacks the capability to produce content <em> that could fail the checkpoint. The <em>inability<em> of an authoring tool to pass a checkpoint, however, does not make the checkpoint "not applicable". ==================================== AUTHOR For the purposes of this document, an author is a user of an authoring tool (OK w/ KM, JR) ==================================== AUTHORING TOOL INTERFACE 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 COMMENT: included "for the purposes.." because interface is such a common word that anyone using ATAG is highly likely to know what an interface is. Also felt this was borderline necessary. I like JR's def - but should the "for the purposes of this document," be added? ==================================== CHECKING 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 COMMENT: I question the word "searched". Makes it sound like it is happening afterwards as a process unto itself. I regard the action as "live" or real-time. My last sentence may be completely superfluous or inspire someone to come up with another definition. How about this definition? Built-in mechanisms or processes that notify the author of accessibility problems as they occur during creation of web content. (Should we include reference to 3.2 as in my first def.?) ==================================== DISCOVERABLE - drop? ==================================== EXCEPTION? - drop? ==================================== INFORMATION ICON? Any graphic that an author can select to receive additional information. (OK w/ JR, KM) ==================================== INTERFACE PRIORITY KM: ?? JR: Do we still use this term? CP4.1 deals with the subject matter. KM COMMENT: Dropped? ==================================== REPAIR (ING?) KM: 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 COMMENT: I like JR's def. Should we include the ref. to 3.3 as in my suggestion? ==================================== TECHNIQUES Informative suggestions and examples for ways in which the success criteria of a checkpoint might be satisfied. OK w/ JR, KM ==================================== TYPICAL AUTHOR 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. OK w/ JR, KM. NOTE: this is in ATAG guideline 3.1, not 4.1 as mentioned in the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/att-0033/Issues.ht ml attachment to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0033.html ==================================== WORKFLOW The entire sequence of steps or tasks that are followed to produce a deliverable. OK w/ KM, JR ==================================== JR: NEW TERM WCAG-CAPABLE 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 referenced. KM: Hmmm. Slightly lost here. Not sure what is meant by "format". Are you saying that this "format" is something that has the capacity or potential to meet any WCAG requirements that are explicitly referenced in official WCAG guidelines or techniques documents?
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 10:17:05 UTC