RE: Definition of Prompt

If the WAI AU working group agrees to this definition of prompting, I would
like to see the wording of guideline 3.1 "Prompt the author to provide
equivalent alternative information" to be changed or lowered in priority (it
is currently marked as a Relative priority, which refer to Web content
guidelines 1.1-1.4, making this a priority one requirement).

If Word never prompts the author to correcting misspelled word, how can we
justify prompting the user to include alternative textual information for an
image and still adhere to guideline 5?

Heather Swayne
Program Manager
Microsoft 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 10:40 AM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: Jutta Treviranus; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definition of Prompt

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> I would prefer us to use the more common definition of prompt, that it
> requires author response, with the proviso that a prompt can have multiple
> parts, for example the different pieces of stuff required for an image, or
> can cover a multitude of things, for example "there are accesibility
errors
> in this document - save anyway?"

I agree with Charles. I think that a prompt requires author response.

 - Ian

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Jutta Treviranus wrote:
>
>   In discussing the issue of what is a prompt and what would constitute
>   compliance with guideline 3.1, it becomes apparent that we have a
>   contradiction in our documents. In both (Guideline and Technique)
>   Glossary of Terms and Definitions sections we have the following
>   definition:
>
>   "A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a
>   decision. A prompt requires author response. For example, a text
>   equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an image insertion
>   dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts can be used to encourage
>   authors to provide information needed to make content accessible
>   (such as alternative text equivalents). "
>
>   Which seems contradictory in and of itself.
>
>   This is complicated by the technique text following guideline 4 where
>   we speak of prompts in the following terms:
>
>   "Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information
>   needed to make the content accessible (such as alternative text
>   equivalents). Prompts are simple requests for information. For
>   example, a text equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an
>   image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts are
>   relatively unintrusive and address a problem before it arises.
>   However, once the author has ignored the prompt, its
>   message is unavailable."
>
>   We seem to be suggesting that on the one hand prompts require an
>   author response and on the other hand that they are relatively
>   unintrusive and are instruments of encouragement.
>
>   I think the spirit of what we want is that prompts should provide
>   noticeable encouragement without demanding immediate author response.
>   Therefore I suggest we delete the sentence "A prompt requires author
>   response" from both Definition sections. I also suggest that we
>   delete the sentence "However, once the author has ignored the prompt,
>   its
>   message is unavailable" from the technique section, given that that
>   is not always the case with our broader definition of prompt. In the
>   technique document we also need to make it clear that we are not
>   adhering to the restrictive definition of prompt used in several
>   software development toolkits but a broader definition of prompting.
>
>   Jutta
>
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 24 April 2000 15:10:15 UTC