start on my AUWG techniques review action item

This is what I have so far..  First general/meta comments on Techniques Document as a whole
 and then more specific comments on each checkpoint I was assigned.. sorry it's a little rough


General

Meta comment - Introduction section needs to be "beefed up" to encourage submission of ATAG
 techniques (maybe even provide a mechanism, like the WCAG techniques submission form?),
 and to give more information on how to interpret the intent and examples following.
Also Introduction seems inconsistent with following text in SC sections - text says examples
 meet SCs, but Introduction seems to imply that examples alone are not sufficient
(may be confusing - if one example for an SC is successfully demonstrated, is that SC
 satisfied and can just stop there)?   How does one measure that an example is successfully
 demonstrated?   Also where are the actual techniques - I just notice intent and examples
 under each technique section (may be confusing, at least when considering different WCAG
 format also (reason for different format from WCAG techniques should be documented? -
otherwise may not look good to outsiders)..  reference from Guidelines also is out of date -
talks about "advisory" and "sufficient"?

Meta comment - do we want to adopt some of the ideas (if not the style/format) of WCAG techniques
 (applicability, description, examples, resources, related techniques, tests)?
  Do we want to include test procedure to determine if example/technique successfully
 meets the SC or is successfully demonstrated?

Why do we call items "examples" instead of "techniques"?

What about other "techniques" besides those listed?   Do we give encouragement to submitters
 to submit additional techniques (or examples), to foster innovation and creativity?
If so, how would they do it?

How is it determined how a particular example "meets" a success criterion?  Is it the opinion
 of the AUWG?  Other means?  Need some measure to determine how technique meets SC, and
 documentation as to why that example meets SC if we believe it does.. and how example is
successfully demonstrated..

How is "intent" different from "rationale" in Guidelines (may be confusing)?

Meta comment - are the ATAG Guidelines and Techniques accessible or can be authored accessibly
 (follow our own guidelines and practices)?

re: Related Resources:  is there a requirement about what qualifies as a related resource?
Do the related resources imply endorsement/vetting by the AUWG (maybe a disclaimer needed)?
 There are a lot of resources out there, of varying degrees of quality, and some are company-
specific (would EOWG help?)

One possible resource for A.4.1 - WCAG Checkpoint 3.3 and associated material

Possible Resources for A.4.2 - lots of links to writing good software documentation,
for example wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_documentation

(PS - I think "documentation" is too loose - there can be good, bad, and confusing documentation -
 we should strive to provide relevant and useful
documentation, and ask author to evaluate same)

Specific Comments re:A.4.2.1

re: intent - say "authors with disabilities" instead of just "authors" - say "instruction
 for such use" instead of just "instruction"?

re: example - is the help system (and "accessibility features" section) accessible and
 immediately available to authors?  Is it linked directly at many places in the authoring tool?
Does it actually provide meaningful help?

say "specific" in front of documentation - documentation should be helpful also, with
illustrations/examples to guide..
- also have item saying to author "was this helpful?  If not go .." in list
say "specifically.." in front of every item

new example - have a notification saying "do you want help on these topics?" and then enter "yes"
or "no" ..?

new example - have a search help feature where an author could enter text for assistance..?


Specific Comments re: A.4.2.2

Say "authors with disabilities" instead of just "authors"  - say "instructions that provide
 such support" instead of only "instructions"?

"documented" -  a written or printed paper furnishing information or evidence, also a "data file"
(definition from dictionary.com) - is our text faithful to this definition?

say "accessible documentation" - how is documentation presented - is it presented accessibly?

new example - user guide or help menu that is accessible and usable (accessed at any point
 with simple action)?

needs to be more than "documented" - documentation must be helpful and relevant - more specifically -
how is it documented - what is association with feature?  (for instance, accessible dialog box,
 menu item, prompt, with examples/illustrations?)



Specific Comments re: A.4.1.1

re: intent - how are those with disabilities more disadvantaged than others in avoiding
mistakes with authoring actions?
typos - non-web-based..  "action" is listed twice
        - web-based - "editing" instead of "ending"?

new example - have a confirmation notification with "undo" saying "do you really want to
 undo previous action?" to avoid pressing "undo" accidentally (for use in non-web-based and
text edit field of web-based..)?
new example - accessible dialog box/menu item appears when authoring action requested stating
 that  "warning - action is irreversible - do you still want to proceed?.. and then click
 "yes" or "no" ?

A.4.1.2

re: intent - how are those with disabilities more disadvantaged than others in being able to
 modify settings without making mistakes?

new example - in preference setting utility, when adjusting setting, dialog box/menu item
 says "result of setting change will be.. do you still want to do this?.. and then click "yes"
 or "no"?

new example - "restore default setting" actionable item should always be available and then
say what that default setting is, for the author to activate if necessary..?

new example - dialog box/menu item appears when preference setting is changed saying
"warning - this change is irreversible - do you still want to do this?" - and then
click "yes" or "no"?


A.4.1.3

re: intent - how are those with disabilities more disadvantaged than others in being
 immediately able to reverse "undo" - also should say at end of sentence.. "by authors with
 disabilities"

new example - have a confirmation notification with "redo" saying "this action will reverse
(cancel) undo - do you still want to do this? .. and select "yes" or "no" (for web-based)?

new example - for text-based entry, have "redo" option after "erase content" which brings
back the content previously erased?

new example - after "cancel", can display message "do you want to undo cancel"?  and then
 select "yes" or "no"; or alternately, have "cancel with redo" and "cancel without redo"
options..?

new example - non-web-based - have redo option appear if undo is confirmed as previous
 action..?


That's it so far.. will continue researching..


Best, Tim