Draft Available: Additional CTAUR edit

Colleagues:

I have created yet another draft of potential edits to CTAUR. The draft is available for your consideration here:

http://raw.githack.com/w3c/ctaur/js2404a/


Summary of Changes:

	The former Sec 3: "User Need Definition" is now moved to the
	Introduction as Sec 1.2.

*	The former Sec 1.2: "Scope and Applicability" is moved
	*	to the end of the introduction as a new Sec 1.6.

*	Sec 6.3 is expanded with additional requirementsthat we'll need
*	to discuss. Essentially, it suggests any user should be able to
*	request an A-I generated summary for themselves of either
*	content under development, or of any comment thread that the
*	collaboration tool knows about.

Best,
Janina


 
 This draft:

 1.)	Restores discussion of custom keyboard mappings and unique menu
 usage to the Introduction, but doex so by moving that content to the
 last paragraph of the relevant section. I believe this now reads
 sensibly.

2.)	Attempts an initial glossary entry for WYSIWYG, which you'll
recall was questioned by COGA in issue 58:

	https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/58

	While we don't customarily refer to Wikipedia in our glossaries,
	the Wikipedia page for WYSIWYG seems particularly helpful to me.

	Best,
	Janina


Janina Sajka writes:
> Dear Jason, Scott, All:
> 
> I've been mulling Sec. 9 vs Intro and I'm not convinced 9 is enough
> alone. I don't yet have proposed edits, though.
> 
> Since we use the Intro to paint the picture from a user's scenario, I'm
> now inclined to keep something about standard conventions in the intro
> because it's just as important as notifications and the other
> problematic features we talk about in the Intro. The more I look at this
> the more convinced I am what we had was just positioned wrong. I'm now
> inclined to put something at the very end of Sec. 1.2.
> 
> As for Sec. 9 I'm not convinced it'c clear enough or strong enough. But,
> as I say, I have no edits yet and am likely to get to this before late
> today at the earliest.
> 
> So, maybe we resolve this concern this time around, or maybe it's
> another edit for the next working draft. I propose we not let this topic
> hold us up from updating the working draft in preparation for our
> meeting with COGA. I don't believe this particular issue is of
> significance to them. It's more of a screen reader and/or keyboard
> command user feature.
> 
> Best,
> Janina
> 
> 
> Jason White writes:
> > 
> > On 2/3/24 08:56, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > I'm thinking our preference for controls that reflect standard
> > > expectations over arbitrarily mapped keyboard shortcuts is an important
> > > requirement. I propose we migrate it out of the Introduction and into
> > > our requirements, though I'm not sure yet exactly where I think it
> > > should go.
> > > 
> > We created section 9 and included this requirement there, but we didn't
> > remove it from the introduction. I propose removing it from the
> > introduction.
> > 
> > Janina, are you satisfied with the way it's stated in section 9, or should
> > we revise that further?
> > 
> > I'll fix the introduction.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
> Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/
> 

-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/

Received on Monday, 22 April 2024 16:10:50 UTC