Re: Issues list updated

>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG1-PR-issues
>
>If you believe there are outstanding issues other than the question of a
>matrix of tool responsibilities please say so by email ...

Phill agrees with the proposed resolution for:
1. "don't do Priority 0" http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG1-PR-issues#Should
2. "Do link checklist to techniques"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG1-PR-issues#Linking

but I have the following comments on the "suggested wording" for the other
two proposed resolutions:

3. "Applicable use of guidelines"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG1-PR-issues#Appropriat

I would change the suggested wording in the 12/02 draft from:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991202/#q9
>Note. Some checkpoints may not apply to certain classes of authoring
tools.
>Common sense dictates whether the requirements of a checkpoint exceed the
>scope of the tool's design. Checkpoints that require a tool to implement
>a functionality are applicable to the tool.
>
>The working group has collected some example conformance evaluations. It
>should be noted that conformance claims are not necessarily validated or
>endorsed by W3C.

to <PJ proposal>:
Note. Some "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guideline" checkpoints may not
apply to certain classes of authoring tools.  The scope of the tool's
design
dictates whether the requirements of a checkpoint are applicable.
Some checkpoints require a tool to implement applicable functionality in
order
for the tool to claims conformance with the checkpoint.  Sample conformance

evaluations are provide as example only, and are not necessarily validated
or
endorsed by W3C.

[sample conformance evaluations] would link to ?


4. "Average skill level" http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG1-PR-issues#Level

I would change the suggested wording in the 12/02 draft from:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991202/#priorities

>All authoring tools should support all applicable Web Content Guideline
>checkpoints, but the nature of that support may vary according to the
>nature of the authoring tool, the expected skill level of the author using
>the tool, and the requirements of each WCAG checkpoint. In some cases
>support can be provided automatically, without the need for explicit
author
>participation, in other cases human judgment is required and support is
>provided by the tool in the form of prompts and documentation.
>
>In choosing priority levels for checkpoints, the Working Group has assumed
>that "the author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of the
>authoring tool, and that the author has no prior knowledge of
accessibility.
>For example, the author is not expected to have read all of the
documentation
>but is expected to know how to turn to the documentation for assistance.

<WAC proposal from list>In creating a tool that meets the needs of its
intended audience, the
"average targeted user" of the tool has the necessary skills appropriate
for that type of tool.  In today's environment, most authors will not have
the appropriate knowledge to create accessible content and it is up to the
tool to help them via methods appropriate to the type of authoring tool.
</proposal>

to <PJ proposal>:

Authoring tools are developed to assist the author in creating Web content
and manage sites. In assigning priority levels for checkpoints, "the
author" or user of the tool is assumed to be aware of the language support
and competent, but not necessarily an expert, user of the tool, and has
only a nominal knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not
expected to have read all of the documentation packaged with the tool, but
is expected to know how to turn to the integrated help and documentation
for assistance.


Regards,
Phill Jenkins,

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 12:36:23 UTC