- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi, I disagree that there is a requirement for some automation in 4.1, since to me that suggests that prompting the authro for everything is not sufficient to meet the checkpoint. For the rest I propose we incorporate as is. Chaals On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Jan Richards wrote: Hello all, Here are some ideas for subtext: 4.1 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] This checkpoint requires at least some automation of accessibility checking. At minimum, prompt the author to manually check for specific problems. More advanced implementations might be automated to a high extent, prompting the author rarely and flagging problems as they occur. 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] This checkpoint requires that, once accessibility problems have been found, either automatically or manually, authoring tools help the author to correct them properly. At minimum, provide context-sensitive help for problems detected by the accessibility checking that is required by checkpoint 4.1. More advanced implementations might provide the author with automated or semi-automated correction tools, in addition to guidelines and examples. -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 18:02:10 UTC