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: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 19:20:53 +0200
To: "'Jan Richards'" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a001c67456$1982f4a0$2201a8c0@rsnbiwa>

Ok.. Full agree with your comments.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Richards
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:11 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: A.3.3



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 17:21:21 GMT

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