More Changes

More Changes

Most of the following suggestions attempt to reinforce more precise word 
usage per my earlier memos.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999OctDec/0084.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999OctDec/0043.html


#1. The definition of "accessible" is circular. The word "accessible" 
should not be used in the definition of "accessible".

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"Accessible, Accessibility" 
"Within these guidelines, Accessible and Accessibility are used in the 
sense of being accessible to people regardless of disability."

Note that WCAG 1.0 does not do this. It says.
"Accessible Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a 
disability. 

There is my proposed revision.

"Accessible, Accessibility"
"Something is considered accessible if it is usable by people with 
disabilities."
====
#2. Avoid unecessary capitalization in the Terms and Definitions. There is 
no need to capitalize them. If is essential to emphasize the words, they 
could be put in quotes or other formatting.

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"These terms refer to Authoring practices that improve the accessibility of 
content generated by the tool."

Proposed:
"These terms refer to authoring practices that improve the accessibility of 
content generated by the tool."

Please check for other instances of this problem within the AU document.
====
#3. Delete separate definition of "Transcripts". The current definition is 
problematic. It is not clear what "line by line" refers to -- the written 
text or the "dialog" or the "action". This definition also muddies rather 
than reinforces the existing definitions of "text transcript" and "collated 
text transcript." The definition of Alternative Information already 
includes definitions of the relevant terms.

"Transcripts" 
"A transcript is a line by line record of all dialog and action within a 
video or audio clip."
====
#4 Delete separate definition of "Video Captions". There are several 
problems with this current definition. The term "video captions" is 
extremely likely to be confused with the term "video description" or 
"descriptive video" which is WGBH/NCAM's name for auditory description. The 
definition for "caption" that is already in the newly revised definition of 
Alternative Information. If the editors feel that a separate definition is 
essential, then it should be labeled simply "Captions" rather than "Video 
Captions." 

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"Video Captions"
"Captions are essential text equivalents for movie audio. Captions consist 
of a text transcript of the audio track of the movie (or other video 
presentation) that is synchronized with the video and audio tracks. 
Captions are generally rendered visually and benefit people who can see but 
are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or cannot hear the audio."
====
#5. Correct and add specificity to the example for checkpoint 3.3. The 
correction is the elimination of the term "video captions" per change #4. I 
think it makes sense to specific and precise about what is required for 
movies. 

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. 
[Relative Priority] "
"For example include synchronized text and audio equivalents (such as video 
captions) with movies. Refer also to checkpoint 3.4."

Proposed:
"3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. 
[Relative Priority] "
"For example, for movies include captions, auditory descriptions, and 
collated text transcripts. Refer also to checkpoint 3.4."

Obviously, a link to the definitions of those terms would be appropriate.
===
#6. Refine wording in intro to guideline 3. Note that I recommend sticking 
with the term "auditory description" rather than "audio description". There 
are also a lot of other changes.

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"Guideline 3. Support the creation of accessible content"
"Well structured information, and equivalent alternative information are 
cornerstones of accessible design, allowing information to be presented in 
a way most appropriate for the needs of the user without constraining the 
creativity of the author. Generating equivalent information, such as 
textual alternatives for images and audio descriptions of video, can be one 
of the most challenging aspects of Web design. Automating the mechanics of 
this process, by prompting authors to include the relevant information at 
appropriate times, can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such 
information can be mechanically determined and offered as a choice for the 
author (e.g., the function of icons in an automatically-generated 
navigation bar, or expansion of acronyms from a dictionary) the tool will 
assist the author. At the same time it can reinforce the need for such 
information and the author's role in ensuring that it is used appropriately 
in each instance."

Proposed:
"Guideline 3. Support the creation of accessible content"
"Providing well-structured content, including equivalent alternative 
information, is a cornerstone of accessible design, allowing information to 
be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs of the user with the 
least amount of additional effort on the part of the author. Yet providing 
such information can be demanding of an author and authoring tool 
developers should attempt to automate and facilitate these processes. For 
example, prompting authors to include the relevant alternative information, 
such as textual alternatives for images, text transcripts for audio clips, 
captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for movies, 
and expansions of acronyms or abbreviations, can greatly ease the burden 
for authors. Where such information can be mechanically determined and 
offered as a choice for the author (e.g., the function of icons in an 
automatically-generated navigation bar, or expansion of acronyms from a 
dictionary) the tool will assist the author. At the same time it can 
reinforce the need for such information and the author's role in ensuring 
that it is used appropriately in each instance."

====
#7. Revise the wording of checkpoint 3.1 to be more specific.

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:
"3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., 
captions, long descriptions of graphics). [Relative Priority] "

Proposed:
"3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., 
textual alternatives for images, text transcripts for audio clips, captions,
 auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for movies, and 
expansions of acronyms or abbreviations). [Relative Priority] "
Note that there are several other entities not mentioned (frames, tables, 
objects, etc.) but I think that this is probably enough.
====
#8. Revise the introduction to guideline 1. Remove the word "onus" because 
it carries such a negative connotation ("onerus burden"). The changes also 
attempt to tighten the prose, such as by leading off with a sentence that 
reinforces the guideline statement.

Current AU 1.0 - 10/22/99:

"Guideline 1. Support accessible authoring practices"
"If the tool automatically generates markup, many authors will be unaware 
of the accessibility status of the final content unless they expend extra 
effort to make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are 
unfamiliar with accessibility, the onus is on the authoring tool to 
generate accessible markup, and where appropriate, to guide the author in 
producing accessible content."
"Many applications feature the ability to convert documents from other 
formats (e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup format specifically intended 
for the Web such as HTML. Markup changes may also be made to facilitate 
efficient editing and manipulation. It is essential that these processes do 
not introduce inaccessible markup, or remove accessibility content, 
particularly since the markup changes are hidden from the author's view in 
many tools."

Proposed:
"Guideline 1. Support accessible authoring practices"
"Authoring tools should make it as easy as possible to generate accessible 
content." [OR] "Authoring should tools support, facilitate, and encourage 
the generation of accessible content." "Authoring tools can do this by 
automatically generating accessible markup and, where appropriate, guiding 
the author in producing accessible content. Because authoring tools 
frequently transform data from one data format to another, its is essential 
that these transformations neither remove accessibility content nor 
introduce inaccessible content."

#9. Check for places where there are two periods, "..". Minor typo should 
be corrected.

=============================
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, 22 October 1999 17:22:32 UTC