Re: Comments on Aug 18 working draft, AU guidelines

My further comments with CMN2...

  >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.
CMN2
Right. Another approach: "The checkpoints are prioritised according to their
importance for an authoring tool to meet 4 goals...", or some clearer way of
saying that.
(Although I have proposed elsewhere changing this to three goals)
  
  >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.

CMN2 The idea is that there are languages which enable accessibility, and
languages which do not. A tool might be a very good tool for people with
disabilities, but producing markup in a language which precludes
accessibility (for example by not allowing for alternative content). I guess
we need to clarify this in the checkpoint.
  
  >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.

CMN2 Obviously. How about something like "For example, in an automatically
generated navigation bar, it is clear that "search" is appropriate for a
buttn linked to a search function"

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 01:26:22 UTC