Re: Some questions re: Configurability in ATAG2.0

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the feedback. My comments are inline:

Quoting Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>:

> Some questions:
> 
> Do we want to say "configurable by the user?" in following text?  Or do you
> interpret "author" as the "user" of the authoring tool?


Our convention is to use "author" as the user of the tool. BTW: We should have 
a convention for the person who uses the Web content that is the output of the 
tool. I suggest "Web content consumer" since "reader" or "viewer" are both too 
limiting.


> Why would this be a Priority 3 checkpoint (and not higher)?  In what order 
> should it be placed logically in Guideline 4 (in relation to the other 
> Guideline 4 checkpoints)?


I agree. I could see this as P2, but probabably not as P1, as I don't think it 
is absolutely critical to the production of accessible content. In terms of 
ordering, the following might work well:

4.1: Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given 
priority. [Priority 2] 
4.2: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and 
documentation are always clearly available to the author [Priority 1] 
4.3: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation 
functions are configurable by the author. [Priority ?2?]
4.4: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and 
documentation are integrated into the workflow of Web Content development. 
[Priority 2] 
4.5: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and 
documentation are naturally integrated into the appearance and interactive 
style of the tool. [Priority 3]

This puts all of the checkpoints related to implementation of "accessibility 
prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation" together and in order 
of priority (if we assign P2 to the new checkpoint).


> >ATAG Checkpoint 4.X: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair
> 
> >and documentation functions are configurable. [Priority 3]
> >
> >Rationale: A configurable tool is more likely to be adaptable to the work 
> >habits of more authors.
> 
> Do we want to say in following text "The user (author?)-configurability of 
> all functions related..", as well as "equivalent to the user 
> (author?)-configurability of all comparable functions..", and "number of 
> options under author (user?) control.." (do you mean author as user of 
> authoring tool)?


Yes (see comment above).


> >Success Criteria #1: The configurability of functions related to 
> >accessibility prompting, checking, repair, and documentation must be 
> >equivalent to that of comparable functions in terms of number of options 
> >under author control and the degree to which each option can be
> controlled.
> >
> >===============================================================
> >
> >Trickle down effects in the rest of the ATAG documents:
> >
> >- can remove "[3] configurability" from success criteria 1 of ATAG 
> >checkpoint 4.4.
> >
> >- can remove paragraph 4 from Introduction to Guideline 3 (in Guidelines 
> >and Techniques)
> >
> >- link to this checkpoint from Clarification area in Techniques for 
> >Checkpoint 3.1.
> >
> >- can remove "This intervention may proceed according to a 
> >user-configurable schedule. " from success criteria 1 of Checkpoint 3.1.
> >
> >- can use section on configurability in techniques for checkpoint 3.1 
> >could be used as starting point for techniques for this checkpoint (4.X)
> >
> >- good place to gather minor configuration techniques from all over the 
> >techniques document.
> >

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 09:04:35 UTC