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

ATAG2.0 Checkpoint 4.5 review

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:01:39 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20040722095134.00b09830@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

I had an action item from the July 2004 AUWG f2f to review the following:

"4.5 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation
  functions are configurable [Priority 3]

     Rationale: A configurable tool is more likely to be adaptable to
  the work habits of more authors.

     Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.5,
  Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.5

     Success Criteria:

        1. The configurability of functions related to accessibility prompting,
  checking, repair, and documentation must be equivalent to that of
  comparable functions in terms of number of options controllable by
  the author and the degree to which each option can be controlled."

Good job!  Looks good..

A few minor comments:

(1) I thought this was going to be Priority 2 (not 3) - from previous WG 
discussions?
(2) Definition of "configurable" needs to be provided.
(3) Definition of "comparable functions" needs to be provided?
(4) We're talking about configurability of accessibility functions, right, 
not configurability of the tool itself,  because one can't always 
configure/manipulate an authoring tool, (e.g., a
tool gets input from another application and automatically produces output 
- consider a graphing tool that receives info from a database and all it 
can do is produce a bar graph ?)?
What happens if "comparable functions" (whatever those are) are not 
"configurable" (whatever that means..)?

Thanks and best wishes,
Tim Boland NIST
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:03:37 GMT

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