a few minor comments on Guideline 4 Implementation Techniques

Implementation Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0:


Guideline 4: Promote and integrate accessibility solutions 


Working Group Draft DD MMM 2004

* * * * *
Technique 4.3.2: The tool can inform the user that disabling any
continuously active process may cause problems to develop that might not
otherwise.
 
KM: Technique 4.3.2 The tool can inform the user that disabling any
continuously active process may result in web content with accessibility
problems. 
 
(We have the term "accessibility problems" so I thought that could be used
rather than just saying "problems".)
 
* * * * *
Technique 4.3.4: Efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings
with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate
accessible content.  
 
KM: ?? I am a bit unclear about the wording of this technique, so I'm not
sure of what to suggest as an alternative. What about this:
 
Technique 4.3.4: When changes are required to make content accessible, the
accessibility-related settings should be easily and quickly accessed with as
few steps as possible.
* * * * *
Defined Term: "Prominence" [ed. maybe should be moved to ATAG Glossary]
.
.
.
Highlighting: Controls may be distinguished from others using icons, color,
styling, etc. (...) An additional consideration is that in order to meet
ATAG Checkpoint 7.1, the highlighting must be implemented (...) 
 
KM: I'm confused. Shouldn't this be the UAAG Checkpoint 7.1? 
* * * * *
 
I had meant to get this out before the meeting, but didn't get a chance to
send it previously. Sorry about that :-(
 
I will make a few mock-ups of screenshots and send them to Jan first to make
sure I am on the right track.
 
regards, Karen Mardahl