Issues Identified in Techniques for ATAG 2.0 Guideline 3

Hi,

I have an action item from the last call to do a review of the techniques for 
ATAG 2.0 guideline 3 with the goal of identifying issues that require work in 
the future. I have completed this action and the list is below:

---

Issues Identified in Techniques for ATAG 2.0 Guideline 3

•	All: “Implementation notes” sections might be best moved to the top of 
the techs 3 doc.
•	All: Review required for “STRONGLY SUGGESTED” items - maybe replace the 
actual words with an icon (with alt=”This technique is strongly suggested”)
•	All: Bring in Checkpoint rationales?
•	All: LONGDESCS!!!
•	All: All exec summaries need grammar and style checks.
•	All: Voice of techs must be standardized
•	3.1 rationale out of date
•	3.1 Exec summary of techs needs some rewriting
•	3.1 Success criteria has changed-requires change to org of techs
•	3.1 links should be included for sub-techs that read “Prompts for form 
field place-holders may be similar to those for X”
•	Example 3.1.1(9) needs fixing
•	3.1.1(8) add link to algorithm?
•	3.1.1(10) refs missing, links missing
•	Example 3.1.1(11) Explain reason for right window
•	3.1.1(15) – add links
•	Note at end of 3.1.1– move to start and style as a note
•	3.1.2, 3.1.3 “Where applicable” should be replaced e.g. Where more than 
one author is using an authoring system…
•	3.2 exec summary grammar
•	3.2 succ crit 2 techs needed!!!
•	3.3 succ crit 2 techs needed!!!
•	3.4 succ crit 1 get new wording
•	3.5 rem Note, add rationale
•	Check for cross-over between 3.4 and 3.5
•	3.6 could use more detail, may need an example
•	3.6.2 can be expanded
•	3.7 needs more detail
•	3.9 may need more detail and may need an example

-- 
Jan Richards, 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 Friday, 21 January 2005 18:18:57 UTC