Re: comments on ATAG2.0 B.1 Techniques - my action item

My comments below:

Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote:
> Sorry the following is so “jumbled”..  won’t have much more time to 
> spend on it before the deadline..
> 
> Best, Tim Boland NIST
> 
>  
> 
> “immediately prior to” – difficult to determine – should be run often 
> before that point!

JR: How about "uses the accessibility checker, including a final check
prior to publishing"

> “control every detail of” – should address accessibility specifically?

JR: suggest "authors to control every detail of the web content
produced, including following accessible authoring practices."

> New technique – have authoring tool rate an authoring action by 
> producing “accessibility
>  index” message (similar to “risk index” found in some antivirus software?

JR: Needs discussion I think.

> New technique – have authoring tool remember history of authoring 
> actions from author
>  so that when authoring action is completed, dialog box/other prompt 
> will say “you’ve
>  done this before, and here’s what happened..”

JR: Needs discussion I think.


> New technique – when transforming/converting in same technology, have 
> “summary of
>  current accessibility considerations” pop up before 
> transformation/conversion, and
>   “possible accessibility impact – do you still want to continue? Yes or 
> no”  .. if
>  yes “do you want to save summary of current accessibility 
> considerations for use later”?

JR: I like this.

> New technique – after transformation/conversion complete, keep copy of 
> content before
>  transformation along with accessibility considerations, and say “do you 
> want to go
>  back to earlier transformation/accessibility – earlier point in 
> content” – and then
>  click yes or no?

JR: OK

> New technique – when authoring action attempted or content presented, 
> tool will present
> 
>  “these are some techniques you might use now” and then list some WCAG 
> techniques to use..?

JR: Needs discussion I think.

> New technique – when transforming/converting between different 
> technologies, have tool
>  prompt and say “here are some WCAG techniques to use in the new 
> technology?  Do you
> want to continue?  Yes or no”

JR: Needs discussion I think.

> New technique – when transforming/converting between different 
> technologies, have tool
>  prompt and say “these WCAG techniques in new technology may be 
> equivalent to techniques
>  used in old technology – do you want to continue – and say yes or no?    

JR: Needs discussion I think.

> Current techniques presented are OK but very general and need to be more 
> specific – refer
>  to specific WCAG techniques or WCAG techniques grouped by technology?

JR: Under related resources?


> Why is the distinction made between authors and end users in B.1.2.1?

JR: Because authoring tools often give better access to things like
comments.

> What is definition of “similar data structure”? 

JR: I'm hoping it's clear from the examples below.

> What are “presentation conventions”?    Why is “presentation” converted 
> into “markup”?
>  I thought presentation was to be kept separate from markup?

JR: That one could be removed.

> What is definition of “end product”? 

JR: We say "in the end product of the transformation or conversion".

> New technique – authoring tool prompts author as to “which version of 
> content do you
>  want to access” – and list all the versions from beginning to present?

JR: Needs discussion I think.

JR: I only got this far...


> New technique – when content proposed for deletion from current editing 
> view, tool always
> 
>  saves content as backup to be retrieved later?
> 
>  
> 
> New technique – in automatic generation of content from authoring tool, 
> documentation of
> 
>  how that content meets WCAG2 is provided also, or list of WCAG2 
> techniques used is
> 
>  provided also?
> 
>  
> 
> New technique – for content creation using a technology contained in 
> WCAG2 techniques
> 
>  document, authoring tool first displays a list of those techniques to 
> the author, and
> 
>  then the author can select which ones they want to use?
> 
>  
> 
> New technique – for any authoring action, authoring tool suggests 
> general techniques
> 
>  from WCAG2 techniques document, and then asks author if author wants to 
> use any of
> 
>  these in content creation?
> 
>  
> 
> NOTE: “accessibility information” should refer to the way in which a 
> technology is used
> 
> to promote accessibility – in keeping with thought that technology 
> itself is not
> 
> accessible or inaccessible, but that a technology may be used in an 
> accessible or
> 
>  inaccessible manner
> 
>  
> 
> Need to specifically reference WCAG techniques document - perhaps under 
> "related resources"
> 
>  
> 
> tools should encourage use of WCAG techniques where appropriate - tool 
> should be
> 
>  knowledgable of WCAG
> 
> techniques - tool should be able to present selected WCAG techniques and 
> issues
> 
>  with them when prompted - also issues with SCs?
> 
>  
> 
> need to distinguish transformation/conversion in one technology from 
> those between
> 
>  technologies - in the latter
> 
> case, may not be able to preserve accessibility information by default
> 
>  
> 
> should say "authors with disabilities" - "support" is ambiguous - not 
> testable?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

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

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 19:51:16 UTC