Re: my edits/comments on the latest doc.

Hi, Liddy.

Great comments. Thanks for your input. I think that most of my 
responses are nitpicky, with one or two exceptions.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 01:25  PM, Liddy Nevile wrote:

> I have made a lot of mess on this version! I read the text very 
> carefully - what might look like editorial comments are, in many 
> cases, logic corrections, IMHO. Specifications need to be very precise 
> and the language needs to be very positive and active - so I have made 
> that sort of change too.

First off, I agree that items like passive voice, the subjunctive, and 
overly complex phrases need to be modified to the extent they can 
without changing meaning. This will have to happen, in fact, in order 
to make the documents more easily translatable. Additionally, the voice 
of sections like success criteria must be the same. Some of them are 
simple declarative statements, some of them are simple imperative 
statements, and a few appeared to consist of more prose than is 
necessary.

W3C style issue:
Recommendation and Note are always capitalized when in reference to W3C 
documents.

Comment on "reasonable, moderately expert":
I think the success criteria where this term has been added should be 
reconciled with the checkpoint priorities section, which reads:
"Note: The choice of priority level for each checkpoint is based on the 
assumption that the author is a competent, but not necessarily expert, 
user of the authoring tool, and that the author has little or no 
knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to 
have read all of the documentation, but is expected to know how to turn 
to the documentation for assistance."

Comment on "Web content":
Since we have no definition of such, perhaps your concerns can be 
included in the addition of a definition? (Side note: We also don't 
have a definition for "author". I think that will have to be resolved 
quickly.)

Intro 1.6 Accessible authoring practices
"...the result is unlikely to be high-level ATAG conformance."
I propose:
"...the result is unlikely to be a high level of ATAG conformance."

Checkpoint 1.6:
A reference to "Guideline 7" remains in the rationale.

2.1:
I think the success criteria here need to be reworked (not relative to 
Liddy's additions), since they appear to be success criteria about W3C 
specs, not success criteria for the author.

2.4:
"it would be absurd..." is, while accurate, perhaps not what is needed 
here. I would recommend:
"Once _an_ author has made the effort to add accessible content, either 
manually or with the aid of the authoring tool, _he or she does not 
wish to_ discard that content when converting..."

Guideline 3, first sentence:
Liddy's suggestion: "While ensuring the accessibility of automated 
output provides a solid foundation for accessible content, authors 
often act ideosyncratically."
My attempt: "While ensuring the accessibility of automated output 
provides a solid foundation for accessible content, authors often can 
introduce accessibility issues on their own."

3.2:
"Content that has been created in association with its presentation may 
be difficult to separate from its presentation in order for it to be 
presented in an accessible way."
I would strike "from its presentation".

3.4:
I would change success criterion 1 from:
The authoring tool's prompts implore the author to provide equivalent 
alternatives for each instance of non-text content.
to:
The authoring tool's prompts _guide_ the author to provide 
equivalent..."

3.5:
Success criteria 1 should read "the tool prompts the author..."

3.11:
Success criteria 1: "The documentation contains sample or  suggested 
workflows which, if followed, are likely to increase the chance of 
higher levels of WCAG conformance than otherwise."
Full stop after "WCAG conformance" and strike "than otherwise."


-
m

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 17:26:38 UTC