RE: Definition of Prompt

We justify because it is an absolute (priority 1) requirement for access that
alternative content is available when multimedia objects cannot be rendered,
whereas it is a lower priority requirement that spelling be corrected. I
think we should make it clear (as I said in the teleconference - minutes to
come as soon as my computer is working again, hopefully in the late morning)
what the level of requirement is - prompt the author to provide alternative
content means that at some point before publicatin or saving a document,
where there are objects without alternatives, the author is prompted at least
once to provide alternative content. For example, at save time, a warning may
say "No alternative content has been specified for N objects. Add content or
proceeed anyway?". Another example is that each time an object is added the
author gets prompted for content. OR when a file is opened and is missing
things the author is prompted - "no alternative content for objects X, Y and
Z, please add it - click OK to continue"...

Charles McCN



On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Heather Swayne wrote:

  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
  

--
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

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 01:13:14 UTC