- 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