Re: Prompts

On stardate 3 May 2000, Charles McCathieNevile sent a subspace communication stating:

> Proposed revised definition:
> 
> Prompt, as used in these guidelines, means something which requires
> author response (for example a warning box which must be dismissed, an
> interactive dialoigue or wizard). 
> 
> Note 1: A required prompt (as in checkpoint 3.1) may be included as
> part of a larger dialogue or wizard process. In that case it must be
> clear that it is an important field, but need not be 'required' (i.e.
> it is not necessary that the user enter content or select null content
> to continue the authoring process)
> 
> In addition I propose an erratum for 3.1:
> 
> add
> Note: Prompting may be done at any time in the authoring process. For
> example it may occur once for each missing alternative, or as a single
> prompt at publish or close or save reminding the author that there are
> object(s) that require alternative content to be added.
> 
     With the inclusion of the note above, I think this is a workable solution, 
at least in regards to programs that do more than web authoring, like Word, 
Wordperfect, Excel, etc.
     As the new guy here, I was wondering something. Was it ever discussed in 
the group about using different guidelines based on what type of program was 
being used? For instance, I would feel that a dedicated web authoring tool 
(HTML or XML editor) should have stronger accessibility features than a 
"general purpose" word processor et al that merely has a "save as HTML" 
feature. Any one who is serious about the web sites the create or maintain will 
almost certainly be using a dedicated web design program rather than a GP 
program. And those are the people most likely to use accessibility options if 
presented them in an alert or prompt that would come up when a image or 
whatever is used. Someone using a GP program isn't going to want to have to 
deal with such interruption when when typing a letter or such with pictures in 
it. For them, a prompt when saving as HTML, or the blue squiggly line we keep 
talking about, would suffice I feel.
     If this was discussed before, and rejected, I was wondering, why?


Frederick J. Barnett                  http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
E-mail: fred@eatel.net
Member: HWG Governing Board & Assistant Secretary
http://www.hwg.org/

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2000 14:43:51 UTC