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

Re: F2F documents up to now

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:42:59 -0400
Message-Id: <a0602040cbd19a4ded61e@[142.150.154.170]>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Tim

This is not the success criteria it is the introductory text of the 
technique. Prompting and checking and repair are separated out 
because prompting should occur before there is a problem and checking 
and repair happen after there is a problem.


Jutta

  At 9:21 AM -0400 7/13/04, Tim Boland wrote:
>Thanks for doing this!  Good job.  A few comments/questions:
>
>Optimize according to what metrics?   Can author have input 
>to/control the optimitization process?  How would one measure 
>efficiency?
>
>At 11:27 AM 7/12/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Here is the rewording:
>>
>>Optimize the timing of prompting, checking, and repair functions. 
>>Authoring accessible documents should be as efficient as possible.
>>
>
>Why are "prompting" and "checking and repair" separated out in 
>following sentence?
>
>>  Prompting, should be timed so that accessibility problems are 
>>prevented whenever possible and, when not possible, checking and 
>>repair should occur when the accessibility problem is easily 
>>reversible.
>>
>
>"easily" may not be objective.  Is the following sentence a "rationale"?
>
>>  Integrated guidance in creating accessible content from the 
>>beginning of the workflow will avert the need for more disruptive 
>>checking and repair later in the workflow.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 11:36:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:03 GMT