Proposed edits and additions to Rationales

Here are my proposed additions and revisions to the rationales for 
the guidelines.

Also at one time we had agreed to use "author" instead of "user" to 
distinguish the author from the reader or viewer of the documents. We 
seem to have digressed from this. Should we edit the document to 
adhere to this convention again?

In guideline 1 should we move the two checkpoints regarding structure together?

Jutta


1.2
Rationale: Element or object properties displayed and edited through 
graphic means are not accessible to authors using screen readers, 
Braille displays or screen enhancers. The explicit property value 
should be accessible to assistive technologies which read text.

1.3
Rationale: When using a screen reader, screen magnifier, on-screen 
keyboard or Braille display it is very difficult to get an overview 
of the document. Items are viewed and controlled sequentially at the 
lowest level. To effectively edit a document, authors require the 
ability to flexibly collapse the document so that chunks of the 
document can be edited, moved or deleted at a less granular level.

Editor's Note: This guideline and it's techniques are somewhat 
muddled. My interpretation of this is that we want to have the option 
to edit the document in a collapsed structure view and we also want 
to be able to edit the hierarchy  while in that view (eg. demote a 
header from H1 to H2).

1.4
Rationale: Authors may require a set of display preferences to view 
and control the document that is different from the desired default 
display style for the published document.

1.5
Rationale: When using a screen reader, Braille display, or many 
keyboard alternatives it is not possible to quickly and accurately 
identify and jump to a desired location in the document because the 
document is viewed and moved through sequentially. The document 
structure allows the author to move through the document at a higher 
level.

2.5
Editor's Note: Should we have the statements regarding checking and 
correcting here or should they be elsewhere?

3.6
Rationale: A summary of the document's accessibility status will 
prompt the author to improve the status, allow the author to keep 
track of problems to address and allow the author to monitor their 
progress towards making the document accessible.

4.1
Rationale: The author should be able to easily locate, activate and 
use accessible authoring practices supported by the tool. If the 
features that support accessible authoring are difficult to find, 
activate and use they are less likely to be used. Ideally these 
features should be turned on by default.

4.2
Rationale: When the author is given a choice of authoring practices 
or features within the tool the accessible choices should be among 
the first and easiest choices.

4.3
Rationale: Using accessible authoring practices should not require 
that the author depart from the authoring conventions of the tool. 
Accessible authoring should be a natural, integrated component of 
authoring with the tool.

--

Received on Saturday, 22 March 2003 09:47:31 UTC