Bug#1226: Compound list of issues from ATutor developer

The following are proposals for dealing with these issues:

 > The following issues came to light during an evaluation of the ATutor
 > LCMS by the project lead, Greg Gay.

 > (1) In checkpoint 1.5, for Web-based tools can the search be browser's
 > find function? What if only some browsers support "find".

[1] Change success criteria text from:
"At least one comprehensive editing view must always include a search 
function that meets these conditions"
TO:
"At least one comprehensive editing view must always include a search 
function that meets the three conditions below. The search functionality 
may be provided externally (e.g. for a Web-based authoring tool, by the 
user agent identified in the conformance profile )."

[2] Change to: 3.2.3 Conformance Profiles
ADD LINE
8. Required for Web-based Authoring Tools: The name and version number 
of the user agent(s) on which the authoring tool was evaluated for 
conformance.


 > (2) In checkpoint 2.3, what if information is required from the user?
 > Can the pre-corrected markup be put in anyway?

[1] Change success criteria text from:
"All markup and content that is automatically generated by the authoring 
tool (i.e. not authored "by hand") must always conform to WCAG."
TO:
"All markup and content that is automatically generated by the authoring 
tool (i.e. not authored "by hand") must always conform to WCAG unless 
assisting or prompting (see Checkpoint 3.1) occurs immediately."


 > (3) In checkpoint 3.1, success criteria 2 is confusing.

[1] Change success criteria text from:
"Whenever the tool provides instructions to the author, either the 
instructions (if followed) must lead to the creation of Web content that 
conforms to WCAG, or the author must be informed that following the 
instructions would lead to Web content accessibility problems."
TO:
"Any instructions provided by the tool, must either lead to the creation 
of Web content that conforms to WCAG (if followed), or be labelled with 
a warning that the instructions will lead to accessibility problems."


 > (4) In checkpoint 3.2, does success criteria 2 require that a checker
 > be launched automatically?

[1] Change success criteria text from:
"The authoring tool must always inform the author of any failed check 
results prior to completion of authoring."
TO (if we do NOT intend to require checking):
"If an automated or semi-automated check has been performed by the 
authoring tool and the result is negative, the authoring tool must 
inform the author of the result prior to completion of authoring."
OR:
TO (if we do intend to require checking):
"When automated or semi-automated checking is available, the authoring 
tool must either perform or offer to perform the checking prior to 
completion of authoring. If only manual checking is available, the 
authoring tool must have prompted the author to perform the checking 
prior to completion of authoring."


 > (5) In checkpoint 3.7, the success criteria could be interpretted as
 > covering all functionality (in principle, almost anything can affect
 > accessibility).

[1] Change success criteria text from:
"All features that play a role in creating accessible content must be 
documented in the help system."
TO:
"The help system must document all prompts for equivalent alternatives, 
as well as any accessibility checking and repair features."


----

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jan



-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 21:29:15 UTC