- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:58:13 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hello Jan and Jutta,
Here are some comments on the 2 November
draft of the WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines [1], which is
looking better and better.
- The document is missing a document identifier
(e.g., in top right corner of document: WD-WAI-AUTOOLS-19981102).
- The document is also missing the W3C logo.
(Compare with [2])
- Judy recommended that we put the following text
in the status section of the User Agent guidelines [2].
<BLOCKQUOTE>
This document has been produced as part of the W3C
WAI Activity, and is intended as a draft of a
Proposed Recommendation for how to improve user
agent accessibility. User agents include browsers
(graphic, text, voice, etc.), multimedia players,
and assistive technologies such as screen readers,
screen magnifiers, and voice input software.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I propose that similar wording be used in the status section
of [2] to describe authoring tools. Is one sentence possible?
- In the intro, change the name of the document to
"WAI Page Author Guidelines".
- Will the authoring tool guidelines be divided into a
"guidelines" document and a "techniques" document? If so,
have the editors considered where the split might occur?
Two of the recent challenges for the User Agent Guidelines have
been (1) What should the structure of both documents be (and
in particular, the table of contents (2) What is a guideline
and what is a technique? The most recent solution to (1) has been
to organize the guidelines table of contents
according to user needs and the techniques table of contents
according to user agent interfaces. Establishing the difference
between guideline and technique has been easier with this division.
Still, calling one thing a guideline and another a technique
has felt more arbitrary than it has with the page author guidelines.
In general, that which is language or system-dependent belongs
in the techniques document
The editors might find the tables of contents of [2] and [3]
useful as authoring tools and user agents may share many
qualities. In particular, I found the following themes helpful
in organizing the techniques (although I haven't gotten any feedback
yet as to their utility):
- Configuration of features
- Visibility of features
- Accesibility of features
- Identification of document elements
- Navigation of document elements
- Querying for document information
- Activation of active components
- Notification (of changes) to the document or interface
In the current authoring tool guidelines, sections 3 and 4
seem to contain guidelines (with techniques listed
under them) and 5 and 6 seem to contain info that would
go in the techniques document.
- At the UA WG face-to-face meeting, the participants lamented the
fact that the editors has grouped together information in the
techniques (e.g., "Allow the user to control fonts, colors,
and speech volume). So, in the latest version, we have split
the techniques as much as possible into individual items that
developers could use as a checklist. This means more techniques
(and more priority one responsibilities), but the WG chose
this path for clarity's sake.
Thus, for instance, under 3.A.5 (Promote accessibility awareness
in tool suites), under "Image, Audio, and Video Editors", there
is currently one technique while there should be several: one
for image editors, one for audio editors, and one for video editors.
In short, please keep this in mind as you refine and add techniques.
- One day we will have to coordinate the terms and definitions
between the UA guidelines and the AU guidelines.
- In the PA guidelines and UA guidelines, guidelines have been
written with the imperative voice: "Ensure", "Provide", "Allow",
etc. Thus, for example, for 3.A.2, technique #1, perhaps it
should be "Ensure that authoring tools may be configured
by users" or something like that (see comment below).
- 3.A.2, technique #1: what does "at least partially" mean
in "Authoring tools should be designed so that accessibility awareness
is at least partially user configurable." This technique states
the same thing as the guideline 3.A.2 and probably should just
be a statement in the opening paragraph of the section.
- 3.A.2, technique #4: What are "active accessibility system features"?
- 3.A.2, technique #5: Reference to "ftp" seems too specific to me.
There might be other means of transfer that are used (e.g., Jigedit
at W3C). Tools should not publish inaccessible pages.
- 3.A.3, technique #2: "...authoring tools should always assume that
the author intends to create accessible pages." And do what?
- 3.A.4, opening sentence: change "dealing with the
manipulation of" to "that manipulate
- 3.A.4, technique #3: Change "advertised" to "author should
be notified".
- 3.A.5, Techniques sentence: make "appear" into "appears".
- 3.A.5, Technique #1: Change "should be permitted to be published"
to "should not be published".
- 3.A.5, Technique #2: Split into several techniques.
- 3.B: Change guideline/section header to "Provide accessible
information". (In general, I think "provision" should be replaced
by either "provide" or "providing", as in "the provision of
information" should be changed to "providing information".
- 3.B.1, Technique #1: Both focus and edit position are indicated as
the context for help. Which should be used? See the discussion
of "Point of Regard" in the UA guidelines.
- 3.B.1, last technique: Drop "frequent" from "frequent examples"
(and replace, possibly, with "many", "numerous", or something
like that).
- 3.B.2, Where is "Universal Design" defined (or where is a reference
given)?
Sorry, that's all I have time for today. I should have more comments
soon. I hope the above are helpful.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19981030/
[3]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19981030/wai-useragent-tech
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Monday, 2 November 1998 20:57:37 UTC