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

Re: SC4.3 issues and proposed rewording

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:05:48 -0500
Message-Id: <p06020410bdc80515e54c@[10.0.1.4]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

That sounds good.

Jutta

>Here's a rewording that may smooth the different parts together..
>
>Any authoring tool feature that assists in sequencing authoring
>actions (e.g., object insertion dialogs, design guides,  templates,
>wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must always include
>accessibility prompts whenever the author is presented with a decision between
>authoring actions and one of the actions leads to an accessibility 
>problem. The
>accessibility prompt must occur at or before the first point at which the
>author can make the decision.
>
>-Jan
>
>Quoting Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>:
>
>>  Thanks Tim, these are good points.
>>
>>  "Relevant" in this context would mean any prompts that inform the
>>  author of potential risks of creating accessibility problems and
>>  suggests choices that would avoid those risks.
>>
>>  You are integrating into the sequence assisted by the feature.
>>
>>  Because we are talking about encouraging appropriate author
>>  decisions, should we include authoring decision in our glossary? This
>>  seems to be integral to many of our prevention vs. correction
>>  checkpoints.
>>
>>  Proposed wording:
>>  Authoring decision
>>  The point at which an author indicates a choice between a number of
>>  alternatives presented by the authoring tool.
>>
>>  I would therefore propose the following modification to the proposed
>>  rewording:
>>
>>  Any authoring tool feature that assists in sequencing authoring
>>  actions  (e.g., object insertion dialogs, design guides,  templates,
>>  wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must always include
>>  accessibility prompts if there is a risk that an authoring decision
>>  may lead to an accessibility problem. Each accessibility prompt must
>>  occur before or at the time that the author is required to make the
>>  authoring decision referred to by the prompt.
>>
>>  All the underlined words have definitions.
>>
>>  Jutta
>>
>>  >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 21:07:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:52 UTC