- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:58:40 -0400
- To: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hello all, In an earlier posting I suggested splitting the requirements of 3.2 out into three checkpoints (*). If this is done, the checkpoints under the sub-section "Guiding the author to produce accessible content" will be: 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information. 3.2* Assist the author to create structured content. 3.3* Assist the author to separate information from its presentation. 3.4* Assist the author to ensure device independent control. Plus two checkpoints that pertain exclusively to 3.1. 3.5 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives... 3.6 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing equivalent alternatives... -- HOWEVER, because the issues flagged in 3.1 to 3.4 also appear as part of WCAG (see below), this may be perceived as an attempt by ATAG to override the priorities set in WCAG (1) equivalents for non-text [WCAG1.1, 1.2] (2) structured documents [WCAG 3.1] (3) independence of content from presentation [WCAG 1.3] (4) device independent control [WCAG 2.1] Specifically, would we be ignoring some other issues (such as consistency, language clarity, etc.) that WCAG has been careful to include? On the other hand, if we did include all of these other issues we would lose our abstraction from WCAG. On the other hand (is that three hands?), we may decide that tools need not "guide" authors on these other issues, since the tools must "generate", "check" and "help correct" them, already (doubtful). The way out of this might be to recondense 3.1 to 3.4 into a truly general checkpoint that relies on WCAG to define *accessible authoring practices* and on makes use of our SPECIALIZED definition of *prompt*: 3.X Ensure that when markup or content is added by author, the author is *prompted* to follow *accessible authoring practices*. [Relative Priority] This may sound big and scary, but perhaps this could be minimized by stressing that the prompting should be "unintrusive" in the rationale. Thoughts? -- Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/~jan/jan.html Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 11:58:51 UTC