W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2006

ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: A.3.3

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 22:28:35 +0200
To: "'Jan Richards'" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008901c67214$d46a81a0$2201a8c0@rsnbiwa>

----------
IN GUIDELINES: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20-20060322/WD-ATAG20-20060322.html#che
ck-tool-document

"Document the authoring interface including all interface accessibility
features. [Priority 1]"

I think that the actual guideline clearly describe the requirements for the
authoring tools producers.

----------
RATIONALE: 
"Rationale: While intuitive authoring interface design is valuable to many
authors, some authors may still not be able to understand or be able to
operate the authoring interface without thorough documentation. For
instance, an author who is blind may not find a graphical authoring
interface intuitive without supporting documentation."

I suggest an integration for the rationale:

"Rationale: While intuitive authoring interface design is valuable to many
authors, some authors may still not be able to understand or be able to
operate the authoring interface without thorough documentation. For
instance, an author who is blind may not understand a graphical authoring
interface or an user may not understand or find commands or functionality
inside the authoring interface without supporting documentation."


----------
SUCCESS CRITERIA:
"1. At least one version of the documentation must conform to the minimum
requirements (Level 1) of WCAG (whether delivered on the Web, CD-ROM,
etc.)." 

I suggest to remove the (whether delivered on the Web, CD-ROM, etc.) due
that must be clear that *all* digital version of documentation should
conform. So a possible rewording could be:

"1. At least one version of the documentation must conform to the minimum
requirements (Level 1) of WCAG (whether delivered in digital version)." 


"2. All features that benefit the accessibility of the authoring interface
must be documented in the help system (e.g., keyboard shortcuts)."

For conformance, i suggest to change "help system" with "documentation".

"2. All features that benefit the accessibility of the authoring interface
must be documented in the documentation (e.g., keyboard shortcuts)."


"3. The current configuration of selectable actions must be displayed in
either a centralized fashion (e.g., a list of keyboard shortcuts) or a
distributed fashion (e.g., by listing keyboard shortcuts in the user
interface menus). "

This success criteria sounds good.


----------
TECHNIQUES:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/techs/tech1.html#check-tool-document

Technique A.3.3-1.1 [Sufficient]: propose little rewording
Providing a complete version of the documentation (on the Web or bundled on
the CD-ROM) as Web content that conforms to WCAG Level A.

Also for the SC, remove the (on the Web or bounbled on the CD-ROM).


Technique A.3.3-2.1 [Sufficient]:  ok
Documenting all aspects of the user interface covered by Part A of these
guidelines (including keyboard accessibility, display configurability,
etc.).


Technique A.3.3-2.2 [Advisory]:  ok
Providing a documentation index to accessibility features.


Technique A.3.3-3.1 [Sufficient]: correct mistyping (double ))
Displaying the current configuration of accessibility features (i.e.
keyboard shortcuts, visual display (if applicable), auditory display (if
applicable)) either centrally or in a distributed fashion.


Technique A.3.3-0.1 [Advisory]: ok
Making context sensitive help and other forms of support accessible, in
addition to the larger help pages.


Technique A.3.3-0.2 [Advisory]: ok
Providing installation codes in accessible electronic format, not just in
the paper documentation or printed on the installation media.

Cheers.
Roberto Scano
IWA/HWG
Received on Sunday, 7 May 2006 20:28:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT