W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

review issues

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:40:12 -0500
Message-Id: <v04011705b461bf1252b8@[]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, Bruce_Roberts@lotus.com
Regarding the issues raised by Bruce and Phill,

2) I am not adverse to adding a point of clarification to the priority
sections that defines our assumptions regarding the criteria as they relate
to the average author. I would propose that we include a statement to the
effect that the content related goal is met when the average user of the
target tool creates accessible content using the tool. I don't think it is
necessary to re-open priority definitions.

1) I don't think it is wise to dictate how regulatory bodies use or don't
use the guidelines. There is sufficient leeway in  the implementation
details that I don't believe the fear that procurement laws will prevent
the purchase of any authoring tool is based on reality. We can give a sense
of the state of the art in our techniques document.

3) There has been some discussion in member forums that the matrix proposed
by Phill and Bruce be included in the guidelines document. I'm glad to see
this has been re-considered. I include here some thoughts on the matrix
sent to another forum:

"I would just like to add or strengthen the argument that information such
as Phill/Bruce proposes to put into the matrix cannot be normative or
stable and therefore does not belong in the guidelines. The authoring tool
should support all of the WCAG checkpoints either automatically or by
reminding, prompting or helping the author through documentation. In some
authoring tools it is appropriate to do much of the support behind the
scenes automatically wherever possible, in other authoring tools it is
appropriate to primarily provide support through documentation because the
author is entering code directly. As stated in the guidelines, support must
be consistant with the look and feel of the tool. How to design the support
should be left to the discretion of the tool designer, as long as the
outcome is that the average user of the specific tool creates accessible
content using the tool.

In addition, the matrix would not be stable. At the moment we (ATRC) are
working on an algorithm that allows us to measure the "readability" of
various color combinations. This algorithm is being tested through large
user trials. From the stats we have gathered so far it appears we may have
a machine executable test of color contrast. This was not the case before
we conducted the research. The same holds true for other WCAG checkpoints.

I would support adding clarifying statements regarding the implementation
decisions that a tool designer needs to make and regarding what criteria
should be used in making those decisions. I am also not opposed to adding
further text to the techniques document along the lines of what Phill/Bruce


>I won't be able to make the meeting this afternoon.  Next week is looking
>iffy as well (I'm in process of changing offices/towns/divisions).
>Based on my participitation in and review of the AC discussions I would
>suggest the following items need to happen to close out the document:
>1) Add text to section 1.3 that states something like:  "this document is
>meant to provide direction for tool vendors and, given the state of
>authoring tools currently, should not be used by regulatory bodies to
>specify conformance levels until appropriate".
>2)  Re-open priority definitions to capture the idea of "average" user
>that's been used in direct conversation to assign priority level to
>3)  A technique or Note be created showing a matrix of ATAG relative
>checkpoints along one axis, and WCAG checkpoints along the other.  Based on
>the current state of the art, each box of the matrix should be filled in
>with one of:  Done by tool alone, Done by author alone, Done by author in
>conjunction with tool.  Some of these may be difficult to assign but the
>benefit of clarifying responsibility for the tool creator and the
>possibility of reducing whole sets of checkpoints will be well worth it.
>-- Bruce
>Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>@w3.org on 11/23/99 05:07:13 PM
>Sent by:  w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
>To:   WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
>cc:    (bcc: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus)
>Subject:  Meeting tomorrow
>The meeting tomorrow will be at the usual 3:30, on the normal phone number
>The agenda will be discussion of the Proposed Recommendation Review - since
>that does not close until tonight I will post the relevant information as
>early as possible tomorrow.
>I will provide more details about next week's meetings tomorrow.
>--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
>phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 11:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:28:22 UTC