Revision and Suggestions for the 4/30/99 Version of the Authori

Revision and Suggestions for the 4/30/99 Version of the Authoring Tool 
Guidelines

From Eric Hansen

The revised document is available at:
http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/

In addition to the issues listed below (I-001, I-002, etc.), the revision 
contains additional edits.

I-001: Simplify the definitions of priorities.
I-002: Show the separate definitions of the two sections.
I-003: Split checkpoint 2.2.2 into three checkpoints.
I-004: Make clear what the "associated text files" are for.
I-005: Insert revised paragraph in intro and abstract. (Same as I-006)
I-006: Insert revised paragraph in intro and abstract. (Same as I-005)
I-007: Clarify or eliminate guideline 3.4.
I-008: Abbreviate the section 1.1 on guidelines, checkpoints, and 
techniques.
I-009: Address ambiguities regarding how techniques satisfy the 
checkpoints.
I-010: Refer to conformance levels rather than priorities where appropriate 
(general comment)
I-011: Show the separate definitions of priorities for the two sections.
I-012: Describe assumptions for section 2. 
I-013: Specify assumptions for section 3.
I-014: Include assumption of average skill level for section 3.
I-015: Include assumption of use of powerful, intuitive interface for 
section 3.
I-016: Include assumption regarding content type for sections 2 and 3.
I-017: Include assumption regarding "contrast" for sections 2 and 3.
I-018: Include assumption regarding commercial availability of user agents 
for sections 2 and 3.
I-019: Include assumption regarding specific disability groups.
I-020: Name reference disability groups.
I-021: Provide supplementary meaning for Priority levels.
I-022: Comment regarding dependencies between priority levels.
I-023: Intro to list memo regarding words for priority definitions. (The 
memo is somewhat redundant with I have added 4/7/99.)
I-024: Delete old priority definitions. 
I-025: Comment regarding "Conformance to other specifications"
I-026: Delete "Conformance to other specifications" (**Critical)
I-027: Comment regarding priorities for checkpoints.
I-028: Add new note regarding necessity of conforming to both section 2 and 
section 3.
I-029: Note that not all authoring tool has all features.
I-030: Provide a link to the conformance claim for the document. (Provide 
the claim at the bottom.)
I-031: Reword bullet points on structure/content/presentation, text 
equivalents, structure and navigation.
I-032: Remove reference to "onerus".
I-033: Comment on Codes for sections, etc.
I-034: Fix problems regarding dashes and hyphens throughout the document.
I-035: Expand first occurrence of acronyms throughout the document.
I-036: Split checkpoint 2.2.3 into three checkpoints.
I-037: Provide techniques for new checkpoints that have been inserted.
I-038: Fix introduction for Guideline 2.3 (Ensure that no accessibility 
content is missing.) It is critical to use consistent definitions of terms. 
This should be done using the definitions of terms in the WCAG document 
(except to correct bugs or to deal with truly new concepts). (**Critical) 
[I have not undertaken a full rewrite of this section.]
I-039: Make clear that one element (e.g., a picture) may require a 
different text equivalent based on different purposes. 
I-040: Use "text equivalent" if text is meant (i.e., non-text equivalents 
are not included). If non-text equivalents are to be included, they should 
be mentioned. May this is related to meanings of terms such as "alternative 
content."
I-041: Make clear the meaning and purpose of "null alternative content."
I-042: Make clear the importance of managing alternative content. (I need 
to search the list archive for information on this.)
I-043: Make clear the significance of "on the fly".
I-044: Make proper use of term "highlight". (Is it a visual term?)
I-045: Clarify the Technique on "null 'alt'". 
I-046: Question -- Do we really mean "never remove markup known to promote 
accessibility"?
I-047: Question -- Does the "alert" include an opportunity for 
confirmation? Also, is the priority correct? I think that in several places 
in the document configurability could be one priority (e.g., Priority 2), 
but that the capability of scheduling it might warrant a different priority 
(e.g., Priority 3). See I-048 for an example. Should look at other 
occurrences of configurable schedule.
I-048: Split checkpoint involving "configurable schedule" into two 
checkpoints.
I-049: Add references to discussion of different facets of ensuring that 
authoring tools are accessible.
I-050: Question about adding reference to accessibility standards 
documents.
I-051: Add three checkpoints to guideline 3.1.
I-052: Separate the issue of user modifiability into a new checkpoint 
(3.2.1a)
I-053: These checkpoints are not yet clear (3.3.1 and 3.3.2). What is 
navigation from element to element? How does that differ from the more 
extensive treatment?
I-054: Comment. I have not examined closely the Sample Implementations.
I-055: Change wording regarding "alerts".
I-056: Change wording regarding "interruptive alerts".
I-057: Use defined terms (**Critical)
I-058: Question -- Should concept of rendition be included?
I-059: Note -- I was trying to track different meanings of "content".
I-060: Note -- I was trying to track different meanings of "accessible".
I-061: Fix tenses and use complete sentences in glossary.
I-062: Clarify intent of 3.2.2 regarding display and editing.
I-063: Clarify intent and scope of 3.4.1 ("all elements of document").

=============================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615
(Fax) 609-734-1090
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org

Received on Friday, 7 May 1999 19:03:55 UTC