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

Re: Issue #5: Where will Definition of Authoring Tool example images "live" (in the guidelines or techniques) - currently they have been moved to the techniques?

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:17:59 -0500
Message-ID: <401E9457.5A64AB6B@utoronto.ca>
To: karen@mardahl.dk
Cc: "'List (WAI-AUWG)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Hi Karen,

Thanks for the comments. My comments are in-line:

> 2) I vote
>    > to have this definition in Guidelines only


>    > to remove the 8 examples + "Authoring Tool Categories" from Techs
> completely.


>    > to place the 8 examples in the Guidelines directory. I.e. if Guidelines
> is at w3.org/WAI/AU/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040120/ then the examples should be at
> w3.org/WAI/AU/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040120/example1.html, .../example2.html, etc.

OK - except that the 8 examples are down to 6.

>    > to change "Authoring tool" definition in Guidelines Glossary to read
> "See 1.1 Definition of Authoring Tool" where that title is an href.


> As for Jan's work:
> A) I attach my version with a couple of word changes along with a move of
> the 4 functions to the right. I think they needed to be offset visually for
> those skimming either online or printed copy.


> B) In Code-Level Authoring Functions, not sure what is meant by "Author may
> or may not control other aspects (e.g. code formatting)." Began to think of
> structure vs. presentation, but I don't think that is what you mean.
> Couldn't see anything in the existing version to clarify matters.

This was put in so that the definition would cover totally flexible text
editors such as textpad as well as tools that do some code formatting
(e.g. code indentation) but still allow complete flexibility of the
stuff that matters (i.e. the code itself).

> C) You're missing "Constrained Editing". Couldn't it be argued that it fall
> in the new Content Management Authoring Functions? This type of editing uses
> sharply defined templates. Don't know if I am on shaky ground saying this.

Yes, that's what I intended.

> D) You're missing "Symbol-Level Editing". Could this be placed under
> Object-oriented functions? I think the definition might need a slight
> change. Not sure.

I think this can be split over 1 and 2 in the new scheme - depending on
the amount of flexibility afforded to the author.

Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 13:18:22 UTC

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