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

Re: ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: A.3.3

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:10:40 -0400
Message-ID: <44621080.9080004@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Thanks Roberto,

My comments are in-line:


Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> ----------
> 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."

JR: That last sentence is a bit long. Also let's change "thorough" to 
"proper"

"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 proper documentation. 
For example, an author who is blind may rely on documentation to explain 
the layout of a graphical authoring interface or an author may use the 
documentation to find and operate a particular feature."


> ----------
> 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)." 

JR: Let's just make it:

1. At least one version of the documentation must conform to the minimum
requirements (e.g. Level A) of WCAG.


> "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)."


JR: "documented in the documentation"? Maybe:

2. All features that benefit the accessibility of the authoring 
interface must be documented (e.g., list of 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).

JR: OK

> 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.

JR: OK

> 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
> 

Cheers,
Jan
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:30:53 GMT

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