Edits to 4.3 - JT's action from F2F

I just took the minutes from the meeting and unless I was utterly confused
(can easily happen!), we didn't discuss guideline 4.3 as Jan had mentioned
in agenda item 4 (may also have been time limit).

Item 4 was review of JT's proposed changes to 3.1 and 4.3. 

I thought the 4.3 text could be brought up and completed on the list. Tim
and Jan have submitted separate input. First Jutta's proposal:

-----------------
Jutta's proposal:
-----------------

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.


---------------
Jan's comments:
---------------

4.3. Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessibility 
features. [Priority 2]

and

1.Any authoring tool process that imposes a sequence on author actions 
(eg., object insertion dialogs, wizards, design guides, templates, etc.)
MUST 
integrate accessibility prompting prior to the earliest *completion point of

the process*.

[JR comment: the new formulation covers wizards just as well as image 
insertion dialogs, the def'n of *completion point of the process* would rule

out situations in which the author cancels a process.]

---------------
Tim's comments:
---------------

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?)? 

----------------
Now my comments:
----------------

First of all, I like Jan's terse rewrite of the guideline itself! I vote for
that.

Clarification - what happened to "workflow"? Did that get voted out at F2F?
Or it is mentioned enough already including the def. in the glossary?

I also prefer Jan's success criteria wording. Is it more satisfactory to you
Tim? Your entry came after Jan's but you don't comment on it. I think he
avoids some of the definition requirements you run into. Although I think we
will need a def. for *accessibility prompting*. I take it, Jan, that your
asterisk call for a definition of "*completion point of the process*"?? And
I assume we'll need a definition of integrate as well? That does indeed seem
subjective and tricky to define!

regards, Karen Mardahl

Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 23:26:39 UTC