W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Selecting Software

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:43:15 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Sarah.Horton@Dartmouth.EDU (Sarah Horton), w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Thanks for keeping at this Sarah.  My comments are mixed in, below.


At 27/06/02 11:44 AM, Sarah Horton wrote:
>Hello, all! I have a new version of Selecting and Using Authoring Tools 
>for Web Accessibility. I have not made many changes since we last talked. 
>I cut down the intro a bit and moved the inline links to ATAG and WCAG.
>For my own enjoyment I made a version with the links removed altogether:
>I still feel that we could remove the references to ATAG in the context of 
>discussing workarounds, but I promise I won't mention it again.

I am neutral on the subject...
Con: the ATAG/WCAG links do reduce readability somewhat (especially for 
screen-reader users)
Pro: the ATAG checkpoints are (sometimes) useful in  providing a 
restatement (or some additional context) for the workaround.

>If you follow the links below to the changelog you will see the specific 
>entries that I still have questions about:
> >From Change Requests from 11 Feb 2002
>1 Is this item a "not"? Hard to tell from the changelog.
I wasn't on the 11 Feb 2002 call so I have no personal recollection, and 
the minutes of that meeting don't make it any clearer.  Maybe somebody else 
who was on that call can remember what was intended.

>2 I added A-Prompt to strategy 2 but wasn't sure how to add it to strategy 1.

Rather than refer  to A-Prompt in strategy 1, wouldn't it make more sense 
to refer to "Evaluating Web sites for Accessibility"?  If not, then how 
about adding:
"A clean-up tool such as A-Prompt may be of assistance when developing 
accessible templates."  Note that A-Prompt is referred to as a "clean-up 
tool" in 2, but  an "accessibility-retrofitting tool" in 5.

>3 This item does not seem related to selecting software or even strategies 
>for working around software limitations. It's more of an accessible Web 
>page authoring strategy.

Perhaps it could add value to strategy 10.  Having a database (or reference 
list) of standard (i.e. commonly needed) equivalents (.e.g. longdesc for 
company logo,  alt for spacers, bullets, standard nav-buttons) is a good 
idea.  If you have turned off auto-alt feature or have to manually correct 
bad-alt, then having such a  list to refer to would speed the repair 
process.  I agree that this might be a useful tip to add to Evaluating Web 
Sites for Accessibility as well.

>4 and 5 Unclear from changelog what to do about language issues.

Sorry... no idea what is meant here.  The minutes are somewhat cryptic on 
the subject.

> >From Change Requests from 13 Feb 2002
>1 I was uncertain where this item belongs. Is this a vendor question? Is 
>this something you ask webmasters when considering authoring tool selection?

I think it pertains to "Evaluating software currently in use by an 
organization" although the 13 Feb 2002 minutes seem to suggest it modify 
"Selecting new or replacement software" .  Perhaps something like 
"Webmasters or content providers using authoring tools should be consulted..."

>2 I do not know what this means.

The 13 Feb 2002 minutes go on at some length about Phil's 3-column comment, 
but I can't get a clear sense of the issue.

Not much help, I admit...

Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 06:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:33 UTC