Re: Comments on Aug 18 working draft, AU guidelines

Charles,

Thanks for the replies. I've replied to a few of them again below. 

I do encourage the group to make the introduction etc. as clear as possible
before sending for last call, since it will help people who haven't been
staring at this document for months to better understand the context, and
therefore be able to comment on the guidelines and checkpoints.

- Judy

>My comments mared CMN, Judy's marked JB
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:
>
>  Comments on the Aug 18 draft
>  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990818/> follow, through Guideline
>  4. Some of these are brief because of time constraints.
<...>  
>JB
>  Status, 1p: needs draft replacement text, bracketed off until it goes
>  active, for the last call review statement.
>CMN
>Status is updated at each draft. For last call we will include text that
>would be used for a proposed rec

JB What I meant was to suggest that the WG drafts what you plan the last
call "status" section to say, so that the group discusses it, and that it's
specific to AUWG's interest when it goes out, rather than just boilerplate.  

>JB
>  Intro 4p: Needs proofreading, and the final sentence needs an editing pass
>  for readability. Would also be useful to explain that the techniques are
>  informative only.
>CMN
>The current document does not use the term informative, as the working group
>felt that it was jargon. We could add it with a definition.

JB I thought it would short-cut some of the confusing part of that
paragraph; but I'm not wedded to the document using that word. Maybe
someone can volunteer to work over that paragraph.

>JB  
>  Checkpoint priorities, 1p: "There are four goals" -- of what? unclear. Of
>  this document? Then it's confusing to list it here, as the first item under
>  "checkpoint priorities," unless given more context. Maybe this belongs
>  somewhere else? As for the actual statements of goals, "The authoring tools
>  is accessible" doesn't sound like a goal, but "make the authoring tool
>  accessible" would, or "provide guidance to make the authoring tool
>  accessible" or "ensure that the authoring tool is accessible," etc. 
>CMN
>suggest "The working group has 4 goals for tools which conform to these
>guidelines:" Placing the goals statement here means that it is easy to relate
>them to the priorities. I can't find anywhere else where they seem better in
>context, and if they are somewhere else then we need to refer back to them,
>which seems to create discontinuity.

JB There is a discontinuity with the current flow. If the goals stay there,
they need more context, for instance a clearer subhead or transition. It
says "Checkpoint Priorities" and then gives "document goals." You don't
want the unfamiliar reader, who is basically who you want to reach, to get
lost anywhere unnecessarily.

>JB
>  Guideline 1, 3p: The examples given do not present a cross-disability
>  perspective. This is a problem. Also, the mention of specific blocks of
>  "text," to the exclusion of mention of other media objects, seems narrow.
>  
>  1.6: Needs to be made clearer how this item relates to accessibility.
>CMN
>These two issues are related. The aim of the paragraph is to make it clear
>that working speed is an issue of greater importance to peple with certain
>disabilities (motor, visual, etc).

JB A good example for motor would be use of voice recognition, which
frequently requires correction and backing-up, or use of single-switch
access, for instance via an eyebrow switch, puff-and-sip switch, tongue
switch, etc., which can slow down input considerably. Pick whichever
examples seem easiest to understand.

>JB  
>  2.3. "Ensure that document markup language used enables..." I think this is
>  "generated" not "used."
>CMN
>The emphasis is on the language in which the markup is generated. Suggest
>"Use document markup languages that enable accessibility"

JB I don't understand; the authoring tool might "use" any one of a number
of languages in its programming, but what matters for the AU Guidelines is
what markup language the authoring tool _generates_. E.g, "Generate
document markup languages that enable accessibility" would work fine from
my perspective. Perhaps I am missing something here.

>JB  
>  4.2 "...for an object whose function is known with certainity" -- what does
>  that mean?
>CMN That it is known for certain what the function of an object is.  

JB OK... and unfamiliar readers of this document will definitely get
meaning from this? Perhaps it would help to explain this phrase a little in
the text.
----------
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 01:14:34 UTC