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

RE: ATAG Comments

From: McMeekin, Ann <ann.mcmeekin@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:19:54 -0000
Message-ID: <7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E10EB95E8B@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk>
To: "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the explanations and clarifications. I don't see any need to
reopen the issue at this time. It could maybe be reopened if there are
public comments about it, but otherwise, I'm happy to go with the group


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jan Richards
Sent: 26 February 2008 21:44
To: McMeekin, Ann
Subject: Re: ATAG Comments

(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

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.


> 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


NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 17:20:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:55 UTC