Re: Edits to 3.1 and 4.3

Good job.  As promised, my proposed (minor) rewrites of success criteria 
follow:

Best wishes..

At 03:39 PM 10/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:

>Hi Jutta,
>
>I think it's looking better. Here are some comments
>
>Quoting Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>:
>
> > 3.1 Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to
> > WCAG.  [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]
> >
> > Rationale: Appropriate assistance should increase the likelihood that
> > typical authors will create content that conforms to WCAG. This
> > assistance should help to prevent the author from making decisions or
> > omissions that cause accessibility problems. If accessibility
> > problems are prevented, less effort is required to create content
> > that conforms to WCAG.    Different tool developers will accomplish
> > this goal in ways that are appropriate to their products, processes,
> > and authors.
> >
> > Techniques:  Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.1
> >
> > Success Criteria:
> >       1. When content is added that requires information from
> > the author in order to conform to WCAG, then the authoring tool must
> > inform the author that this additional information is required (e.g.
> > via input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.). (determine level)
>
>1.When content is added that requires *accessibility information* from
>the *author* in order to *conform to WCAG*, then the authoring tool MUST
>inform the author (e.g. via input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.) that
>this additional information is required.

1. Every time that --content(link to def?) -- that requires 
--accessibility(link to def?)--
  information(vague term?) from the author(link to def?) at that time to be 
--WCAG-conformant
(link to def?) is created/managed --NOTE: Is the previous objectively 
testable?--by the --authoring tool(link to def?)--via an --authoring 
action(link to def?)--, the --authoring tool(link to def?)-- must
always --inform (link to def? or use prompt or alert?)-- the --author(link 
to def?), prior to the completion of the --authoring action(link to def?), 
that all of this additional information is required for the said content to 
be --WCAG-conformant(link to def?)


>[JR: very minor changes]
>
> > 2. If the authoring tool provides guidance then that guidance should
> > direct the author to use authoring practices that are most likely to
> > lead to Web content that conforms to WCAG.
>
>2.If the authoring tool provides any authoring practice guidance to the
>author, then that guidance MUST direct the author to use accessible authoring
>practices (i.e. most likely to lead to Web content that conforms to WCAG).

2. Every time that the --authoring tool(link to def?)--provides to the 
--author-- any
(authoring guidance practice--what is this?  is it clearly 
defined?  examples?) when the author creates/manages --content(link to 
def?), then all of that guidance?? must always direct
the --author(link to def?)in each instance to use (accessible authoring 
practices--link to def?  examples?) in the creation/management of said 
content, such that the content is --WCAG-conformant(link to def?) at all times


>[JR: very minor changes, we might also state this the other way: i.e. don't
>guide authors towards the wriong things.]
>
> > 3. When the author is presented with a list of choices, that includes
> > choices of formats or authoring practices that do not support content
> > that conforms to WCAG, these should be marked to indicate that the
> > choice may produce content that is inaccessible.
>
>3.The authoring tool must provide an option to mark less accessible choices
>(e.g. formats for which there is no published WCAG techniques document,
>inaccessible authoring practices).

3. The --authoring tool(link to def?) --must always provide at least one 
option to the --author(link to def?) (via alerts, prompts?) to "mark" (how 
is this testable?) "less accessible" (how is this objectively measurable?) 
"choices" (of what?), prior to the completion of all --authoring 
actions(link to def?) --related to those choices.

NOTE: I believe WCAG techniques documents are non-normative, so cannot use 
non-normative example in a normative success criterion statement -- maybe 
pick another example?


>[JR comment: this whole success criteria may go too far for a Rel Priority
>checkpoint. We already have some less strict (more implicit) requirements on
>this in 2.1 and 4.1]
>
>-------
>
> > 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]
>
>4.3. Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessibility
>features. [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.
>
>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*.

1. Any --authoring tool "process" (what is this?  is it defined?) that 
--"imposes" (meaning?
no author control?)--a sequencing of --authoring actions(link to def?)--, 
must always integrate
(into what?  ambiguous word? maybe use "provide" instead? 
)  --accessibility(link to def?)--
--prompting(link to def?)-- to the --author(link to def?)--prior to 
completion of the last --authoring action (link to def?) -- of the sequence.

(NOTE: Why is accessibility prompting needed for the sequencing?   What 
purpose does it serve,
and how is it related to the sequencing?    What if the author doesn't need 
accessibility prompting?    I think this success criterion is unclear on 
this point..)


>[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.]

Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 14:07:39 UTC