Success criteria for guideline 3

Below are my attempts at drafting success criteria for new guideline 
3. In some cases I have included both evidence within the tool and 
actual outcomes of tool use. Should we use one or both?

In working through these, I would like to also propose that we change 
guideline 3.2 to include control method in addition to presentation, 
ie. the content should be independent of both the presentation and 
the method of control (e.g., keyboard, mouse, keyboard or mouse 
emulation).

Jutta

-----------------
You know you have met the criteria if:

1. Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information.

Success Criteria:
... before the author has completed authoring content with non-text 
elements, the tool has reminded the author to provide equivalent 
alternatives.

The average author will have provided equivalent alternatives for all 
non-text elements.

2. Help the author create structured content and separate content 
from its presentation.

Success Criteria:
the tool has provided the author with an explicit method of 
specifying the structure, authoring content independent of 
presentation and authoring presentation style sheets.

The content created by the average author will have structural markup 
to allow navigation of the document using the structure. Text 
elements can be flexibly rendered using various style sheets or 
display preferences without author intervention. Non-text elements 
can be flexibly laid out.

3. Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse 
previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except 
when the function is known with certainty.

Success Criteria:

...when a new object is inserted the tool has prompted the author to 
enter an appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a 
generated default entry. Only an alternative that has been explicitly 
associated with an object is offered as a default entry for the 
author to approve.

  In content authored by the average author there are no improperly 
generated alternatives.

4. Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing 
alternative equivalents for multimedia objects.

Success Criteria:

The author is able to reuse or re-purpose previously authored 
alternative equivalents to provide meaningful alternative equivalents.

5. Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.

Success Criteria:
The average author is aware of accessibility problems within the document.

6. Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems.

Success Criteria:
The average author is able to successfully correct identified 
accessibility problems.

7. Document all features of the tool that promote the production of 
accessible content.

Success Criteria:

The average author, following review of help and documentation will 
be aware of and able to use features of the tool that promote 
accessibility.

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 13:02:21 UTC