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

Re: Edits to 4.3 - JT's action from F2F

From: <boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:27:45 -0500
Message-ID: <1099434465.418809e19396f@webmail.nist.gov>
To: karen@mardahl.dk
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Sorry..I'll look at Jan's submission
Best wishes..

Quoting Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>:

> 
> I just took the minutes from the meeting and unless I was utterly confused
> (can easily happen!), we didn't discuss guideline 4.3 as Jan had mentioned
> in agenda item 4 (may also have been time limit).
> 
> Item 4 was review of JT's proposed changes to 3.1 and 4.3. 
> 
> I thought the 4.3 text could be brought up and completed on the list. Tim
> and Jan have submitted separate input. First Jutta's proposal:
> 
> -----------------
> Jutta's proposal:
> -----------------
> 
> 4.3. Ensure that the author is encouraged to consider accessibility
> throughout the authoring process in any feature that assists the author in
> sequencing actions. [Priority 2]
> 
> Rationale: Accessible design as an afterthought or separate process is much
> more onerous and therefore costly than when accessibility is considered from
> the start. If the authoring tool supports the author in considering
> accessibility before and/or during the authoring process it is more likely
> that accessible authoring practices will become a common practice. This is
> analogous to internationalization, which is much easier when it is
> considered from the beginning rather than handled last.
> 
> Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.3
> 
> Success Criteria:
>         1.      Any feature that helps to sequence author actions (eg.,
> templates, wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must integrate
> accessibility prompting. These prompts should occur before or at the time
> that the author is required to make the authoring decision related to the
> prompt.
> 
> 
> ---------------
> Jan's comments:
> ---------------
> 
> 4.3. Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessibility 
> features. [Priority 2]
> 
> and
> 
> 1.Any authoring tool process that imposes a sequence on author actions 
> (eg., object insertion dialogs, wizards, design guides, templates, etc.)
> MUST 
> integrate accessibility prompting prior to the earliest *completion point of
> 
> the process*.
> 
> [JR comment: the new formulation covers wizards just as well as image 
> insertion dialogs, the def'n of *completion point of the process* would rule
> 
> out situations in which the author cancels a process.]
> 
> ---------------
> Tim's comments:
> ---------------
> 
> All features (e.g., templates..)(def of "feature"?) of the authoring tool
> that assist the author in sequencing authoring actions (link to def?) must
> always "provide" or "include"(instead of "integrate"? --(if "integrate" is
> used,  link to def? or what does this mean precisely?) accessible (link to
> def?) prompting (link to def?).   These prompts (link to def?) must always
> occur at or before the time that the author initiates (or completes?) the
> authoring action (link to def?) related to the prompt (link to def?) in each
> instance of the prompt (link to def?).
> 
> How to objectively measure such "features" as well as what it means to
> "integrate", "include", or
> "provide" accessible prompting (so it can be measured by an author or
> tester?)? 
> 
> ----------------
> Now my comments:
> ----------------
> 
> First of all, I like Jan's terse rewrite of the guideline itself! I vote for
> that.
> 
> Clarification - what happened to "workflow"? Did that get voted out at F2F?
> Or it is mentioned enough already including the def. in the glossary?
> 
> I also prefer Jan's success criteria wording. Is it more satisfactory to you
> Tim? Your entry came after Jan's but you don't comment on it. I think he
> avoids some of the definition requirements you run into. Although I think we
> will need a def. for *accessibility prompting*. I take it, Jan, that your
> asterisk call for a definition of "*completion point of the process*"?? And
> I assume we'll need a definition of integrate as well? That does indeed seem
> subjective and tricky to define!
> 
> regards, Karen Mardahl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 22:28:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:51 UTC