- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:02:03 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
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