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

Re: ATAG2.0 Checkpoint 4.5 review

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:44:39 -0400
Message-ID: <40FFD2D7.6050407@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Here is my take on Tim's questions and comments:

 > (1) I thought this was going to be Priority 2 (not 3) - from
 > previous WG discussions?

The priority was lowered for now in order to get the addition of the 
checkpoint approved. There will be a priority level review of all 
checkpoints prior to last call.

 > (2) Definition of "configurable" needs to be provided.
 > (3) Definition of "comparable functions" needs to be provided?

Agreed. Maybe we can reword the success criteria to make what we are 
comparing more clear. Perhaps:

All functions related to accessibility prompting, checking, repair, and 
documentation must match the other prompting, checking, repair, and 
documentation functions of the tool (respectively), in terms of the 
number of options controllable by the author and the degree to which 
each option can be controlled.

(the term "match" is also used in the success criteria for 4.4, so this 
is consistent)

 > (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..)?

If the design approach of the tool as a whole is to provide little or no 
configurability to the author then it makes sense that the accessibility 
features would also have little or no configurability. Then the market 
can decide. The real problem is not tools with low configurability, it 
is tools with high configurability in some areas and low configurability 
in the area of accessibility. This checkpoint simply seeks to put all 
functions on the same level.

Cheers,
Jan

Tim Boland wrote:

> 
> 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
> 

-- 
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 Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:45:32 GMT

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