Re: Draft Available: Additional CTAUR edit

Thanks, Jason. Much appreciated!

I figured we'd want to discuss 6.3 because it drops the Note we had
saying A-I can't be relied on. My edit takes a different approach,
namely that the user should decide whether the A-I generated summary is
useful. It may not be stated as usefully as we might want, but I do
think it's the better direction.

Janina

Jason White writes:
> Thank you, Janina.
> 
> I made some editorial corrections to the new text under User Need 14, and
> corrected a markup validity error later in the document (of my making, not
> Janina's).
> 
> My changes are now included in Janina's branch.
> 
> I approve of the reorganization of the introduction and the new requirements
> 14. I propose we merge Janina's changes, which of course does not prevent us
> from further editing the added requirements.
> 
> On 22/4/24 12:10, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > 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 17:01:50 UTC