- From: <boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:27:45 -0500
- To: karen@mardahl.dk
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Sorry..I'll look at Jan's submission Best wishes.. Quoting Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>: > > 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 Tuesday, 2 November 2004 22:28:59 UTC