Re: SC4.3 issues and proposed rewording

Here's a rewording that may smooth the different parts together..

Any authoring tool feature that assists in sequencing authoring 
actions (e.g., object insertion dialogs, design guides,  templates, 
wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must always include 
accessibility prompts whenever the author is presented with a decision between 
authoring actions and one of the actions leads to an accessibility problem. The 
accessibility prompt must occur at or before the first point at which the 
author can make the decision.

-Jan

Quoting Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>:

> Thanks Tim, these are good points.
> 
> "Relevant" in this context would mean any prompts that inform the 
> author of potential risks of creating accessibility problems and 
> suggests choices that would avoid those risks.
> 
> You are integrating into the sequence assisted by the feature.
> 
> Because we are talking about encouraging appropriate author 
> decisions, should we include authoring decision in our glossary? This 
> seems to be integral to many of our prevention vs. correction 
> checkpoints.
> 
> Proposed wording:
> Authoring decision
> The point at which an author indicates a choice between a number of 
> alternatives presented by the authoring tool.
> 
> I would therefore propose the following modification to the proposed
> rewording:
> 
> Any authoring tool feature that assists in sequencing authoring 
> actions  (e.g., object insertion dialogs, design guides,  templates, 
> wizards, tutorials, instruction text) must always include 
> accessibility prompts if there is a risk that an authoring decision 
> may lead to an accessibility problem. Each accessibility prompt must 
> occur before or at the time that the author is required to make the 
> authoring decision referred to by the prompt.
> 
> All the underlined words have definitions.
> 
> Jutta
> 
> >I have concerns with testability of "helps".  How about "assists the 
> >author", with definition of "assists" so that it can be objectively 
> >determined which features assist the author as opposed to which do 
> >not assist the author?
> >
> >Also I have concerns with testability of "relevant"?  Can it be 
> >objectively determined what is "relevant" as opposed to what is not? 
> >Can "relevant" be defined further or at least give some specific 
> >examples of what might be relevant as opposed to what would not be 
> >relevant?  Same thing for "related"?
> >
> >I also would prefer "include" rather than "integrate" because 
> >typically integration involves some combination of two things and 
> >you're integrating into what?
> >
> >Proposed rewording:
> >
> >"Any --authoring tool (def)-- feature (e.g., object ins..etc.) that 
> >assists (def?) in sequencing authoring actions (def?) must 
> >--always-- include (relevant-def?) accessibility(def?) prompts(def?) 
> >in the feature.  Each such accessibility prompt must (instead of 
> >"should") occur before or at the time that the author is required to 
> >perform the --authoring action(s)-- related(?) to that accessibility 
> >prompt."
> >
> >Thanks and best wishes,
> >Tim Boland NIST
> >
> >   At 08:48 AM 11/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>Tim,
> >>
> >>Here is the present wording:
> >>
> >>Any feature that helps to sequence  author actions (e.g., object 
> >>insertion dialogs, design guides,  templates, wizards, tutorials, 
> >>instruction text) must integrate  relevant accessibility prompts. 
> >>These prompts should occur before  or at the time that the author 
> >>is required to make the authoring  decision related to the prompt.
> >>
> >>Prompts are defined.
> >>
> >>Jutta
> >>
> >>>Could you please send me a pointer to the "present wording" of 
> >>>SC4.3 (I want to make sure I have the latest!)?   Thanks and best 
> >>>wishes..
> >>>
> >>>At 08:25 AM 11/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Can everyone please check to see that your issues have been resolved.
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Should we use including or especially in the Scope text?
> >>>>2. Barry are you satisfied with Jan's response to your concerns 
> >>>>with the 2.3 criteria
> >>>>3. Tim can you take a look at the present wording of Success 
> >>>>criteria 4.3. Do you have any major concerns?
> >>>>4. I think the general consensus is to leave the alternatives to 
> >>>>text checkpoints as they are at the moment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks everyone for helping to get this document to last call!
> >>>>
> >>>>Jutta
>

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 17:20:27 UTC