W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: ATAG Comments

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:44:15 -0500
Message-ID: <47C4882F.7040801@utoronto.ca>
To: "McMeekin, Ann" <ann.mcmeekin@rnib.org.uk>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

(NOTE: Changes referred to will be put up on the site tomorrow)

Hi Ann,

Thanks a lot for your comments. My comments/suggested edits appear in-line.

McMeekin, Ann wrote:
> I had hoped to get my action item done earlier than this, but unfortunately I didn't have the time I had hoped to be able to spend on looking over the guidelines in detail.
> 
> Here's what I've come up with so far, some of which might be down to my "newbie" status.
> 
> 1. In A.3.6.3 it says: Options Wizard (user interface "chrome"): Authors are provided with an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A.
> 
> At the risk of missing something obvious, it wasn't clear to me which Part A it was referring to.

JR: I have now added a link (updated in place).

> 2. In the success criteria for Guideline B.1.3 Ensure automatically generated content is accessible.
> 
> Note: This guidelines does not apply when authors have specifically allowed the introduction of accessibility problem(s) (e.g., by setting less strict preferences).
> 
> Does this apply to all levels, or just Triple-A?
> 
> It seems almost like a get out of jail free card saying that the tool doesn't have to conform if the user chooses to ignore it. It seems to me that the tool should conform anyway, regardless of whether the user overrides it or introduces errors to the end code after the fact. If the point of the guideline is to ensure that automatically generated content is accessible, should the user be allowed to choose a less strict mode that would result in inaccessible content being generated?

JR: Good point. Generally, the group usually leans towards not overly 
limiting author choice since it is realized that authors will reject 
software products that they feel are too constraining. For clarity, I 
suggest the following rewording of the note:

Applicability Note 1: This guidelines does apply to any accessibility 
problems that informed authors have specifically allowed (e.g., by 
setting less strict preferences) (see Guideline B.3.3 for more on 
informing the author).

> 3. In Guideline B.3.1 Ensure accessible authoring actions are given prominence it seems slightly odd that Higher Prominence for actions is a Triple-A SC rather than Double-A - was there a particular reason that this wasn't made Double-A?

JR: That was just the decision of the group. We could reopen the issue 
before the last call.


Cheers,
Jan


> Other than that, after reading the guidelines a couple of times, they seemed pretty clear, and where specific terms were used, the glossary was very useful in clarifying things that I didn't automatically figure out for myself.
>
> Ann
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 21:44:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:07 GMT