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

SC4.3 issues and proposed rewording

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:45:19 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20041122103123.00abbe40@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
I have concerns with testability of "helps".  How about "assists the 
author", with definition of "assists" so that it can be objectively 
determined which features assist the author as opposed to which do not 
assist the author?

Also I have concerns with testability of "relevant"?  Can it be objectively 
determined what is "relevant" as opposed to what is not?   Can "relevant" 
be defined further or at least give some specific examples of what might be 
relevant as opposed to what would not be relevant?  Same thing for "related"?

I also would prefer "include" rather than "integrate" because typically 
integration involves some combination of two things and you're integrating 
into what?

Proposed rewording:

"Any --authoring tool (def)-- feature (e.g., object ins..etc.) that assists 
(def?) in sequencing authoring actions (def?) must --always-- include 
(relevant-def?) accessibility(def?) prompts(def?) in the feature.  Each 
such accessibility prompt must (instead of "should") occur before or at the 
time that the author is required to perform the --authoring action(s)-- 
related(?) to that accessibility prompt."

Thanks and best wishes,
Tim Boland NIST

   At 08:48 AM 11/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Tim,
>
>Here is the present wording:
>
>Any feature that helps to sequence  author actions (e.g., object insertion 
>dialogs, design guides,  templates, wizards, tutorials, instruction text) 
>must integrate  relevant accessibility prompts. These prompts should occur 
>before  or at the time that the author is required to make the 
>authoring  decision related to the prompt.
>
>Prompts are defined.
>
>Jutta
>
>>Could you please send me a pointer to the "present wording" of SC4.3 (I 
>>want to make sure I have the latest!)?   Thanks and best wishes..
>>
>>At 08:25 AM 11/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Can everyone please check to see that your issues have been resolved.
>>>
>>>1. Should we use including or especially in the Scope text?
>>>2. Barry are you satisfied with Jan's response to your concerns with the 
>>>2.3 criteria
>>>3. Tim can you take a look at the present wording of Success criteria 
>>>4.3. Do you have any major concerns?
>>>4. I think the general consensus is to leave the alternatives to text 
>>>checkpoints as they are at the moment.
>>>
>>>Thanks everyone for helping to get this document to last call!
>>>
>>>Jutta
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 15:46:10 UTC

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