- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:06:36 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Good job. As promised, my proposed (minor) rewrites of success criteria follow: Best wishes.. At 03:39 PM 10/30/2004 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Jutta, > >I think it's looking better. Here are some comments > >Quoting Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>: > > > 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) > >1.When content is added that requires *accessibility information* from >the *author* in order to *conform to WCAG*, then the authoring tool MUST >inform the author (e.g. via input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.) that >this additional information is required. 1. Every time that --content(link to def?) -- that requires --accessibility(link to def?)-- information(vague term?) from the author(link to def?) at that time to be --WCAG-conformant (link to def?) is created/managed --NOTE: Is the previous objectively testable?--by the --authoring tool(link to def?)--via an --authoring action(link to def?)--, the --authoring tool(link to def?)-- must always --inform (link to def? or use prompt or alert?)-- the --author(link to def?), prior to the completion of the --authoring action(link to def?), that all of this additional information is required for the said content to be --WCAG-conformant(link to def?) >[JR: very minor changes] > > > 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. > >2.If the authoring tool provides any authoring practice guidance to the >author, then that guidance MUST direct the author to use accessible authoring >practices (i.e. most likely to lead to Web content that conforms to WCAG). 2. Every time that the --authoring tool(link to def?)--provides to the --author-- any (authoring guidance practice--what is this? is it clearly defined? examples?) when the author creates/manages --content(link to def?), then all of that guidance?? must always direct the --author(link to def?)in each instance to use (accessible authoring practices--link to def? examples?) in the creation/management of said content, such that the content is --WCAG-conformant(link to def?) at all times >[JR: very minor changes, we might also state this the other way: i.e. don't >guide authors towards the wriong things.] > > > 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. > >3.The authoring tool must provide an option to mark less accessible choices >(e.g. formats for which there is no published WCAG techniques document, >inaccessible authoring practices). 3. The --authoring tool(link to def?) --must always provide at least one option to the --author(link to def?) (via alerts, prompts?) to "mark" (how is this testable?) "less accessible" (how is this objectively measurable?) "choices" (of what?), prior to the completion of all --authoring actions(link to def?) --related to those choices. NOTE: I believe WCAG techniques documents are non-normative, so cannot use non-normative example in a normative success criterion statement -- maybe pick another example? >[JR comment: this whole success criteria may go too far for a Rel Priority >checkpoint. We already have some less strict (more implicit) requirements on >this in 2.1 and 4.1] > >------- > > > 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] > >4.3. Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessibility >features. [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. > >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*. 1. Any --authoring tool "process" (what is this? is it defined?) that --"imposes" (meaning? no author control?)--a sequencing of --authoring actions(link to def?)--, must always integrate (into what? ambiguous word? maybe use "provide" instead? ) --accessibility(link to def?)-- --prompting(link to def?)-- to the --author(link to def?)--prior to completion of the last --authoring action (link to def?) -- of the sequence. (NOTE: Why is accessibility prompting needed for the sequencing? What purpose does it serve, and how is it related to the sequencing? What if the author doesn't need accessibility prompting? I think this success criterion is unclear on this point..) >[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.]
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 14:07:39 UTC