- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:05:48 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
That sounds good. Jutta >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 21:07:04 UTC