Re: Comments on Aug 18 working draft, AU guidelines

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:

  >  >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.
  
  JB2 Right. I believe if you use the word "produce" or "generate" it is
  sufficiently clear.

CMN3
How about "Ensure the tool produces markup in a language that enables
accessibility.
  For example, a tool must not produce markup only in languages that do not
allow equivalent alternatives for media-specfic objects such as audio or
images." 

  >  >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"
  
  JB2 That example is clarifying. I realize that other checkpoints do not
  have accompanying examples, and so to use one here would change that
  pattern; however I find almost all the other checkpoints to be adequately
  self-explanatory, but do not find the following phrase self-explanatory
  "except in cases where human-authored text has been written for an object
  whose function is known with certainty." 
  
  You could integrate the example above into the phrase without having to
  throw in a whole extra sentence for the example: 
  "...except in cases where human-authored text (for instance, "search") has
  been prepared for an object whose function is known with certainity (for
  instance, a button linked to a search function)." 
  
CMN3
Actually there are clarifying examples or notes on a handful of checkpoints,
so it isn't a particular problem where necessary. The tension is between
having a self-contained document, and providing so much information that the
techniques document doesn't get read.

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 18:23:48 UTC