- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:42:59 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-Id: <a0602040cbd19a4ded61e@[142.150.154.170]>
Tim This is not the success criteria it is the introductory text of the technique. Prompting and checking and repair are separated out because prompting should occur before there is a problem and checking and repair happen after there is a problem. Jutta At 9:21 AM -0400 7/13/04, Tim Boland wrote: >Thanks for doing this! Good job. A few comments/questions: > >Optimize according to what metrics? Can author have input >to/control the optimitization process? How would one measure >efficiency? > >At 11:27 AM 7/12/2004 -0400, you wrote: > >>Here is the rewording: >> >>Optimize the timing of prompting, checking, and repair functions. >>Authoring accessible documents should be as efficient as possible. >> > >Why are "prompting" and "checking and repair" separated out in >following sentence? > >> Prompting, should be timed so that accessibility problems are >>prevented whenever possible and, when not possible, checking and >>repair should occur when the accessibility problem is easily >>reversible. >> > >"easily" may not be objective. Is the following sentence a "rationale"? > >> Integrated guidance in creating accessible content from the >>beginning of the workflow will avert the need for more disruptive >>checking and repair later in the workflow.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 11:36:04 UTC