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

Re: Action item: success criteria

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:39:17 -0400
Message-ID: <40FE8015.6080503@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Hi Tim,

 > I would replace "any" with "all", in first sentence, and insert "all"
 > before "accessibility" in front of second sentence.

The first "all" works, but I'm not sure about the second "all" - we 
would like these features to come to the attention of the author before 
the workflow ends, but "all" sounds too strong (almost as if we were 
asking every instance page of documentation to be thrust at the author).

 > Also, how does a function "occur" (ambiguous)?   Do you mean a
 > function is "invoked" or "called"?

In my opinion, we mean something like "must be made available" (And 
Checkpoint 4.2 requires that this be CLEARLY availabler). So, it's not 
against the rules for the author to decide against calling or invoking a 
checker, but they do need to have that option.

 > Also, I'm still confused
 > as to how a "workflow" completes. A process following a workflow may
 > complete (according to the rules of the workflow)?

Good point. Let's add a discussion of "completing a workflow" to the 
defintion of the term "workflow" in the glossary.

This would leave us with:

4.3, Success Criteria 1:
Accessibility prompting must be integrated into all features that
assist with author decision-making (e.g. templates, wizards and
instruction text). Accessibility checking, repair and documentation
functions must be made available before completion of any authoring 
workflow.

Any other comments?

Cheers,
Jan

Tim Boland wrote:

> 
> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> 
>> I think Jutta's text hits the nail on the head. I've just made a 
>> couple of minor edits:
>>
>> Accessibility prompting must be integrated into any features that 
>> assist with author decision-making (e.g. templates, wizards and 
>> instruction text). Accessibility checking, repair and documentation 
>> functions must occur before completion of the authoring workflow.
>>
>> Suggestions or comments?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jan
>>
>> Jutta Treviranus wrote:
>>
>>> Here is proposed rewording of Checkpoint 4.3, success criteria 1. 
>>> Because this refers to timing and workflow, I felt that the previous 
>>> success criteria did not address the need to time the accessibility 
>>> functions at the appropriate time in the workflow. Suggestions, 
>>> comments?
>>> Jutta
>>> New wording:
>>> Accessibility prompting must be integrated into any guidance offered  
>>> to the author that assists in making authoring decisions (including 
>>> templates, wizards and instructive text in dialogs). Accessibility 
>>> checking, repair and documentation functions must occur before 
>>> completion of the authoring workflow.
>>>
>>> Old Wording:
>>> *Accessibility prompting, checking, and repair functions and 
>>> documentations/ must/ occur before completion of authoring workflow. 
>>> [@@note to us: this allows accessibility checking to be the last step 
>>> in workflow, if necessary@@][@@wording is still flexible@@] [@@maybe 
>>> we can allow authoring to define scope of workflow with input from 
>>> author@@]*
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jan Richards, M.Sc.
>> User Interface Design Specialist
>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto
>>
>>   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>>   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
>>   Phone: 416-946-7060
>>   Fax:   416-971-2896
>>
>>
>>
> 

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

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:39:52 GMT

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