- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:15:24 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Regarding yesterday's teleconference, can people confirm the following: - we agree that we need to create an errata to change the definition of "prompt" in the "Glossary of Terms and Definitions" section of the Guidelines. There are inconsistencies in the definition itself. We have not decided what the change will be although Phil has proposed that we change the word "requires" to "requests" in the sentence "A prompt requires author response." - we agree that we need to make the meaning of the guideline clear and explicit in the techniques but we do not have a compelling reason to change the wording of the guideline itself. - we agree that prompts should be on an author configurable schedule, that they should be consistent with the look and feel of the application and that the author can actively choose to cancel the prompt. The issues we need to address are: 1. - does "prompt the author" mean that the software initiates a request for information at some point in the authoring process that the author is compelled to respond to or cancel or does software comply with the guideline if the request is present and visible but need not be responded to and could be avoided when certain authoring strategies are used (Phil's loophole)? 2. Should the author be able to turn off all prompts in a single step? We need to clearly distinguish what the additional requirements are in 3.1 beyond the requirements in guidelines 4 and 5 relative to equivalent alternative information. Jutta
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 17:06:15 UTC