Re: Some minor adjustments of criteria

My replies following..

At 10:46 AM 11/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>Thanks for the input Barry. Everyone else, please keep it coming.
>
>I've added these issues to the draft at:
>http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html
>
>Barry Feigenbaum wrote:
>>Hate to be a thorn in the side but I still think the success criteria for 
>>guidelines 1.5 should start "At least one" (vs "All").  As it stands now, 
>>I think we over constrain the developer.   The tool does not need to 
>>provide the feature everywhere; just in enough places to allow a user to 
>>successfully author content.
>
>JR: This makes sense to me.


My concerns with the proposed change: (1) there is no motivation (or 
credit) to shoot towards "all" if "at least one" would suffice, (2) the 
change would introduce an extra dimension of variability in authoring tools 
(one authoring tool would do it one way, another authoring tool another way 
- I feel that such variability may tend to reduce consistency of authoring 
tool behavior across different authoring tools ("interoperability" issue?) 
, and (3) objective testability of "in enough places" and "successfully 
author content" may be in question.


>>Also criteria for 1.4 should not imply only select, cut, copy and paste 
>>need to be supported.  Any service (such as print, email, etc) that is 
>>provided for the element should be similarly accessible. We might want to 
>>edit the criteria from "In any element hierarchy..." to "In any 
>>presentation of any element hierarchy..."   The underling model should 
>>not be required to support these behaviors, just viewers and editors.
>
>JR: Remember that the checkpoint says "perform structure-based edits". If 
>we mean all services, then we would need to change the checkpoint. 
>Personally, I'm ok with the way it is since I think its edits that really 
>need to be structure based. Services like print and email can be if the 
>developer chooses (and if they are they must conform to 1.1).

I tend to agree with Barry on this one, if the accessible provision of 
these services can be objectively measured.


>>For criteria for 2.4 I think we need to broaden the last phrase ("... 
>>must always conform to WCAG") to something like: "... literally (as 
>>stored) must conform to WCAG or conform to WCAG as generated 
>>(inserted/added) in the Web content".  Some content may not conform as 
>>stored/distributed, but will be massaged as inserted by the tool. Only 
>>the resulting content need be WCAG conformant.
>
>JR: This makes sense to me.

My concern is that the proposed change weakens the success criterion, 
introduces variability across different authoring tools as mentioned 
previously, and makes testing more difficult (when is content "resulting" 
as opposed to "stored/distributed", and how can this be objectively 
measured?).


>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>--
>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, 10 November 2004 16:17:20 UTC