Re: Edits to 3.1 and 4.3

Good job.   I have reviewed the success criteria language following, and 
propose the following minor rewrites for the group's consideration..

Thanks and best wishes,
Tim Boland NIST


At 04:43 PM 10/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Here are my current attempts at editing 3.1 and 4.3, I still want to work 
>on it but thought it would be good to get some additional creative 
>participation.
>
>Jutta
>
>
>3.1 Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to 
>WCAG.  [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]
>
>Rationale: Appropriate assistance should increase the likelihood that 
>typical authors will create content that conforms to WCAG. This assistance 
>should help to prevent the author from making decisions or omissions that 
>cause accessibility problems. If accessibility problems are prevented, 
>less effort is required to create content that conforms to 
>WCAG.    Different tool developers will accomplish this goal in ways that 
>are appropriate to their products, processes, and authors.
>
>Techniques:  Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.1
>
>Success Criteria:
>         1.      When content is added that requires information from the 
> author in order to conform to WCAG, then the authoring tool must inform 
> the author that this additional information is required (e.g. via input 
> dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.). (determine level)


When content (that requires --what kind of --information? from the author 
in order to be WCAG-conformant-link to def?) is added to the authoring 
tool, then the authoring tool must always inform (prompt?  alert?) the 
author that this additional information is required in order for the 
referenced content to be --WCAG-conformant--link to def?

NOTE: What kind of "information"?  Examples of such "information"?    How 
to objectively measure the existence of such content and the precise nature 
of the information needed?

>2. If the authoring tool provides guidance then that guidance should 
>direct the author to use authoring practices that are most likely to lead 
>to Web content that conforms to WCAG.

If the authoring tool provides --what kind of --guidance? to the author in 
the completion of an --authoring action--(link to def?), then all instances 
of such guidance must always direct (prompt? alert?) the author to use 
(accessible authoring practices--link to def? or authoring actions--link to 
def?) that are most likely (compared to what?   how objective is this?) to 
enable the authoring tool to create/manage content (you don't say "Web" in 
#1?)(link to def?) that is WCAG-conformant (link to def?)

How to objectively measure "guidance" and "most likely" (subjective language?)?


>3. When the author is presented with a list of choices, that includes 
>choices of formats or authoring practices that do not support content that 
>conforms to WCAG, these should be marked to indicate that the choice may 
>produce content that is inaccessible.


When the author is presented with a list of choices by the authoring tool 
in completing an authoring action (link to def?), and some of the choices 
in that list will not enable the authoring tool via this authoring action 
to create/manage content (link to def?) that is "WCAG-conformant" (link to 
def?), for each such authoring action, all choices in the latter category 
previously stated must always be "marked" (what does this mean?) to 
indicate that each of these choices may create/manage content (link to 
def?) that is not WCAG-conformant (link to def?)

How to objectively measure those items belonging in latter list, as well as 
"marking"?


>4.3. Ensure that the author is encouraged to consider accessibility 
>throughout the authoring process in any feature that assists the author in 
>sequencing actions. [Priority 2]
>
>Rationale: Accessible design as an afterthought or separate process is 
>much more onerous and therefore costly than when accessibility is 
>considered from the start. If the authoring tool supports the author in 
>considering accessibility before and/or during the authoring process it is 
>more likely that accessible authoring practices will become a common 
>practice. This is analogous to internationalization, which is much easier 
>when it is considered from the beginning rather than handled last.
>
>Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.3
>
>Success Criteria:
>         1.      Any feature that helps to sequence author actions (eg., 
> templates, wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must integrate 
> accessibility prompting. These prompts should occur before or at the time 
> that the author is required to make the authoring decision related to the 
> prompt.


All features (e.g., templates..)(def of "feature"?) of the authoring tool 
that assist the author in sequencing authoring actions (link to def?) must 
always "provide" or "include"(instead of "integrate"? --(if "integrate" is 
used,  link to def? or what does this mean precisely?) accessible (link to 
def?) prompting (link to def?).   These prompts (link to def?) must always 
occur at or before the time that the author initiates (or completes?) the 
authoring action (link to def?) related to the prompt (link to def?) in 
each instance of the prompt (link to def?).

How to objectively measure such "features" as well as what it means to 
"integrate", "include", or
"provide" accessible prompting (so it can be measured by an author or tester?)?