- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:47:22 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
This is a continuation of my response to Tim's message (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0000.html) which was very comprehensive: NOTE: This is very long and I am not yet done > Task #1: Terms in Normative Parts possibly either needing definition (if > not already defined?) or additional explanation/examples, or further > thought in relation to objective testability/conformance (consult > http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-terms-inline-gp > for more information on defining terms in specifications - In what follows, > I list the section first, and then the terms possibly needing > additional clarification): > > Global NOte: the "[UAAG 1.0]" designations should be linked to > appropriate version/spec.. JR: Agreed. > In "Definition of authoring tool" section: > > application JR: Would "software application" help this term become common usage? > Web content (link to definition?) JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. > embedded/stand-alone? JR: Maybe we don't need the text that says: "(embedded and stand-alone)" > (Web content) technologies JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. > In Notes on the Definition following, for #1, add "Web" in front of > "content"?, and JR: OK > "live content authoring tool" may need definition > For #2, add "authoring" in front of "tool"? JR: Suggest change to: "Applications that are used to create content in real time..." so we don't need a def'n > Is the "Components of Web Accessibility" section normative or > informative (not clear)? JR: Informative...see "This section is informative, except where noted." at top of Introduction. Maybe definition of authoring tool needs to come out of Intro since this is the only normative part - now that conformance stuff has gone. > If normative, then after "Two Parts", "accessible authoring tools" > should be underlined JR: This is in "Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document" which is also Informative. > (not just authoring tools)? Maybe a definiton (or expansion) of "disabilities"? JR: I think we are ok with the text we have a the top of the introduction : "...more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities." > In "Part A", consider definitions for "authoring tool user interface" JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. >, and "accessible"? JR: WCAG doesn't define I suggest we don't either. > Provide a link for "WCAG2.0"? JR: OK > Maybe "augmented display and control" definition? JR: I think the def'n of "assistive technologies" covers this > Also "perceive", "operate", JR: WCAG2 doesn't define (and the wording here is informative) > "user interface components"? JR: I suggest "its user interface components"=> the authoring tool's user interface which has a def'n. > In "Part B" section, add "authoring" in front of "tool"? JR: OK > For #2, consider definitions for "actions" JR: Authoring actions is a defined term. > and "features"? JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text) > FOr Note following #2, consider definition for "user interface > accessibility"? JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text) > Also definitions for "accessible authoring practices" JR: OK, defined term already > and "functions related to accessibility"? JR: Maybe change to "features" > "Success Criteria" section before "Levels of Conformance": > insert "middle" after "AA"? JR: OK > RElationship to the WCAG: > Do we want to still list "WCAG1.0" after "e.g.", since WCAG2.0 is now a > rec? JR: Let's change to 2.0 > Do we want to provide a link to WCAG2.0 when used first? JR: OK > Web content technologies? > accessible authoring practices? > WCAG-conforming? JR: Suggest: "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by WCAG-conforming examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool" be REWORDED to say "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool that conform to WCAG" > Web content? JR: OK, already defined. > ATAG2.0 Guidelines -> Part A -> Applicability NOtes: > "chrome"? JR: I think the e.g. clarifies this > insert "Web" before "content" (two places in paragraph)? JR: OK > user interface (or do we want to add "authoring tool" before "user > interface"? JR: OK. Let's insert "authoring tool" > accessibility JR: Prefer not to, see above > authoring tool user interface JR: OK, defined already > Guideline A.1.2 - > A.1.2.1 > > standards > platform conventions JR: Let's define: "standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility" > Guideline 2.1 (should be A.2.1?): JR: Yes there is a numbering error. > assistive technologies JR: OK, defined already > 2.1.2: > > user interface components JR: OK, defined already > name, JR: OK, defined already > role, JR: OK, defined already > state, value, description? JR: OK. To get us started..from WAI ARIA (http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/): State A state is a dynamic property expressing characteristics of an object that may change in response to user action or automated processes. States do not affect the essential nature of the object, but represent data associated with the object or user interaction possibilities. Value A literal that concretizes the information expressed by a state or property, or text content. Property Attributes that are essential to the nature of a given object. As such, they are less likely to change than states; a change of a property may significantly impact the meaning or presentation of an object. Properties mainly provide limitations on objects from the most general case implied by roles without properties applied. Description ??? > 2.1.3: > spell out "DOM" JR: OK > user agent JR: OK, defined already > 2.1.4: > available programmatically JR: Maybe if we added (e.g., via an API)? > (value of a?) piece of content JR: Rewording suggestion: "piece of content" => "content" > degree of write access? JR: Rewording suggestion: "degree of write access" => "ability" > 2.1.5: > foreground color > background color JR: I think this is clear to the audience of the doc. > Applicability Note: > user agent interface JR: Should say "authoring tool user interface" - term is defined > Principle A-2: > Editing views? JR: Term defined within "view" > Perceivable? JR: WCAG doesn't define. > A.2.1.1: > Alternative equivalents (or equivalent alternatives - need to decide > which one and stick to it for consistency) JR: Equivalent alternatives > Guideline A.2.2: > Programmatic access JR: Rewording suggestion: "Provide programatic access to all information in the editing view"=>"Provide programatic access to information in the editing view" (removed "all") JR: "Programmatic access" already used above > A.2.2.1: > functional purpose JR: Suggest rewording: "...the functional purpose for the modification..." => "...a description of the purpose of the modification..." > A.2.2.2: > WYSIWYG (need to spell out?) JR: Or make it a defined term: WYSIWYG This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG user interface displays content being edited in a way that is very similar to how it will appear to end users. > A.2.3.1: > > display characteristics/preferences JR: Maybe we instead use "Display settings" which is a defined term. Preferences is common usage. > Principle A-3: > perceivable? JR: Prefer not to, see above. > Guideline A-3-1: > > authoring features? JR: Suggest: "Enhance keyboard access to authoring features" => "Enhance keyboard access" > keyboard access? > > A.3.1.1: > > key-plus-modifier-key JR: I think this is OK. > operating environment > > A.3.1.2: > > keyboard trap JR: OK...here's a start: keyboard trap A user interface phenomenon in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to, but not from, a control or group of controls. JR: PLUS "Importing Content Keyboard Trap" => "Avoiding Content Keyboard Trap" > keyboard focus JR: I think this is a common term for the audience. > standard sequential keyboard command > direct keyboard command JR: I came up with these terms for UAAG (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008AprJun/0004.html) > focusable element JR: Suggest: "will always move keyboard focus to a subsequent focusable element" => "will always move keyboard focus to the next element able to receive focus" > Applicability NOtes: > keyboard navigation functions JR: Suggest: "functions"=>"features" more commonly used perhaps. > Guideline A.3.2: > time-dependent-interaction JR: Suggest wording closer to WCAG2: "Enable time-independent interaction" => "Minimize time limits on authors." > A.3.2.1: > server JR: I think this is a common term for the audience. > A.3.2.2: > simple action JR: In A.3.2.2 I think the e.g. is sufficient. I suggest we remove the use of "simple action" in A.3.4. > A.3.2.3: > moving target > selectable component JR: Remove both terms with suggested rewording: "If the user interface includes any moving targets for authors' actions (e.g.,a selectable component of an animation), then authors can stop that movement." => "If a user interface component that accepts mouse input is capable of movement (e.g., animated vector graphic), provide authors with the option to stop the movement." > GUideline A.3.3 > flashing JR: Defined term. > seizures JR: I think this is a common term. > A.3.3.1: > static view > time-based content > fixed state JR: Suggested rewording (time: "If an editing view renders content (e.g., WYSIWYG) then the author has the global option of a static view in which time-based content appears in a fixed state." => "If an editing view renders time-based content (e.g., animations), provide authors with the global option of rendering only the initial state of time-based content." > Guideline A.3.4: > navigation > editing > content structure JR: Rewording of rationale suggestion: "People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify navigation and editing" => "People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify the tasks of navigating and editing the content" > A.3.4.1: > element, contents, sub-elements (is distinction always clear?) JR: ASIDE: This is making me think we need an "Understanding ATAG 2.0" document since I don't think the Glossary can necessarily clarify absolutely everything. > A.3.4.2: > structured element set JR: Defined term. > editing focus JR: I think this would be clear to the audience. > identical element JR: REWORDING suggestion: "next identical element" => "next instance of the same element". > A.3.4.3: > heading/level? JR: REWORDING suggestion: "to the heading" before "to the next heading element". > A.3.4.4: > Doesn't above, below, preceding, etc. depend on navigation order? JR: We could clarify "in the hierarchy". > A.3.5.1: > text search JR: REWORDING suggestion: "A function is provided that allows text search of the content..." => "Provide the ability to search for text in the content.." > insert "Web" before "content"? JR: OK > textual information/text content JR: REWORDING suggestion: "can search any textual information..." => "can search within any content that is text..." > editable? JR: REWORDING suggestion: "that is editable using the authoring tool" => "that the authoring tool can modify". > backwards, forwards, case sensistive/insensitive may be unclear? JR: I think they are ok. > What does it mean to "perform search results"? JR: REWORDING: "view search results" > instruction level? JR: Term should be "source content" defined in glossary. > markup tags (difference from elements?) JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "search for markup tags" => "search for elements by name". > Guideline A.3.6: > preference settings JR: Agee def'n might help. > A.3.6.1: > keyboard operability settings JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "keyboard operability settings" => "keyboard preference settings" > A.3.6.2: > multiple sets of preferences? JR: I think this is clear. > accessibility option-setting "wizard" JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "...an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A" => "..."wizard"-type feature that helps them to configure any accessibility-related preference settings related to Part A" > A.3.7.1: > help system JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "If a preview is provided, then it is possible to return from the preview using a simple action which is documented in the help system." => If a preview is provided, provide a documented keyboard accessible mechanism for returning to an editing view from the preview. > Guideline A.4.1: > users (different from authors?) JR: Should be "authors" > A.4.1.1: > irreversible JR: Reversible is defined. I guess we could say "not reversible". > A.4.1.2: > setting modification JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "setting modification is irreversible" => "actions are irreversible" JR got to here ================================================================ > A.4.1.3: > (Web) content "undo" > A.4.1.4: > reversible authoring function > > Applicability Notes: > "undo" function (or undo function - need to make consistent) > undo history > > Guideline A.4.2: > user interface > accessibility feature > > A.4.2.1: > documented? > > A.4.2.2: > accessibility feature and tutorial? > > Part B: > Applicability NOtes: > > #1-authoring session? > #2-accessibility problems > third-party feed > automatically-generated > CMS (spell out?) > #3-accessible authoring practices > technologies > markup authoring tool > URIs (spell out?) > alternative text > #4 - authoring systems > software tools > 3rd party (vs. third-party previous - consistency?) software accessibility > checking and repair program > > Guideline B.1.1: > > Web content technology add "Web" before "content" JR: OK > B.1.1.1: > automatically selected > "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?) > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > > B.1.1.2 (and 1.1.4 and 1.1.6): > Web content technology options > prominence > accessible technology > task > > B.1.1.5: > "technology" instead of "technologies" > "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?) > > B.1.2.1: > target (or target technology?) > transformation > conversion > recognized accessibility information > > B.1.2.2: > add "Web" before "content"? > preserved > resulting conten > > B.1.2.3: > automatic deletion > > > GUideline B.1.3: > automatically-generated content > > (in see also): > template > pre-authored content > > B.1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3: > "Web" content or "content"? > > (in applicability notes)" > automated behavior > actions > generation > > Principle B.2: > (global change - add "Web" before "content"?) > > Notes: > authoring tool processes > what is example of non-human author? why do we add "human" here but > nowhere else? > authoring "choices" > > Guideline B.2.1: > > accessible "Web" content > > (in see also): > > repair features > author guidance > (typo - "Guidelin" should be "Guideline") > B.2.1.1 (2.1.3 and 2.1.5 - misnumbered - should be B.2.1.2 and B.2.1.3): > > prompt(ed) > information (difference from "Web" content) > > Guideline B.2.2: > > accessibility problems > > B.2.2.1: > > individual check > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) > > B.2.2.2: > > checking > workflow > (available to whom? the author? user of the authoring tool?) > > B.2.2.3: > > check > author judgement > potential accessibility problem > relevant "Web" content > (this text is confusing to me - "identified" used twice in different > contexts?) > > B.2.2.4: > > decide (What?) > > B.2.2.5: > > individual check > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) > > B.2.2.6: > > accessibility problems > authoring session > > B.2.2.7: > > (repair) assistance > checking > option? > > B.2.2.8: > > accessibility status > metadata > resource discovery > end users (same as authors?) > option? > "Web" content? > > B.2.2.9: > > individual check > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) > > Applicability Notes: > > authoring experience > authoring process > accessibility problems > > Guideline B.2.3: > > accessibility problems > > B.2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3: > > identifiable > repair assistance > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > > Applicability Notes: > > authoring experience > authoring process > accessibility problems > > Guideline B.2.4.: > > (doesn't "manage" include both "edit" and "reuse" as subcategories?) > equivalent alternative > non-text object > > B.2.4.2: > > for a type of?? Is this needed? > > B.2.4.3: > > equivalent alternative > object database > null equivalent alternative > pure decoration > (CART - spell out acronym?) > automatic analysis? > > B.2.4.4: > > author-assigned > plain text > (stores) directly vs. > (stores) as (URIs - spell out acronym) > > (Note: what is an "unreliable source"?) > > Guideline B.2.5: > > accessible template > pre-authored (Web?) content > > B.2.5.1: > > automatically (selects) > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? > > B.2.5.2: > > accessible template options > template uses > > B.2.5.3: > > accessibility status > accessible template options > selection mechanism > > B.2.5.1: > > automatically (selects) > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? > > B.2.5.5: > > new (template) > > B.2.5.6: > > repository of templates > recorded (accessibility status) > > B.2.5.7: > > selection mechanism > pre-authored content > > B.2.5.8: > > repository of pre-authored content > (Web?) content objects > recorded (accessibility status) > > B.2.5.9: > > automatically (selects) > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? > > (Note is confusing to me - acessibility of template vs. accessibility of > (Web) content produced? - what is "final" technology?) > > > Principle B.3: > > accessibility solution > promoted > integrated > > Guideline B.3.1: > > accessible authoring actions > prominence > > B.3.1.1 terms are underlined whereas B.3.1.2 similar terms are not? > > > Guideline B.3.2: > > seqential authoring processes > accessible authoring practices > > B.3.2.1: > > "Functionality" instead of "function"? > relevant to (how measured?) > "complete" the "function" - awkward? > > B.3.2.2: > > sequence > relevant to (how measured?) > "complete" the "sequence" > > > Guideline B.3.3: > > features > accessible (Web) content > available to whom? author? > > B.3.3.1: > > active > > B.3.3.2: > > deactivate/reactivate a feature? > > B.3.3.1 terms are underlined whereas similar terms in B.3.3.2 are not.. > > > B.3.3.3: > > (Web) content accessibility problem > > > B.3.3.4: > > comparable features > > > Guideline B.3.4: > > features > documented > > B.3.4.1: > > instructions > > B.3.4.2: > > accessible authoring process > > > Guideline B.3.5: > > authoring practices > documentation > accessible > > B.3.5.1: > > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (WYSIWYG - spell out acronym) > > B.3.5.2: > > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > > > Conformance: > > version > published > document > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > URI - spell out acronym JR: Common term for target audience I think. > (Note - for the last bullet, do we still want people to point to ATAG1.0?) > what does "available" mean in this context? > component > Web-based user interface functionality > non-user agent platform >
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 20:48:03 UTC