- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:36:59 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- cc: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jan Richards wrote:
some stuff I also agree with.
JR
> 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)?
JT
I tend to agree with Phil, although I think the whole "pop-up in your
face" discussion may have been too black and white. For instance, a
developer could get around the problem of explicit prompting by adding a
short alert (icon and explanatory text) to a pre-existing save or
publish dialog. In this scenario, the author is already being
interrupted with a request for information ("enter file name", "confirm
write over", confirm publish to web", etc.) and an accessibility warning
could be added without necessitating extra mouse clicks.
CMN
I had a look back over the minutes and drafts for August/september last
year. It seems we had agreed that a prompt could be part of another
prompt. We also agreed that the wording of the checkpoint would be prompt,
not alert/inform (as per 4.1) and that a prompt required some kind of
response.
JR
> 2. Should the author be able to turn off all prompts in a single step?
JT
Not for a universal (all future pages) setting.
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 17:39:00 UTC