W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: [components] concept draft ready for more review and comment

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:33:27 +0200
To: "'EOWG'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006601c48480$4f000c20$de78f851@K2>

Hi,

The idea of fading away parts of the image which the text isn't
currently talking about is very effective, it brings the parts visually
into perspective. here some more comments:

* In my opinion, the paragraphs describing the breakdown of each
sub-component might be better off with sub-heading. For example
"Accessible Web: Content, User Agents, Assistive Technologies".

* Actually, there are different types of lines: "is-part-of" and
"interacts-with"; it would be good if there were identified more easily,
for example by adding arrow head to the "interacts-with" lines.

* Authoring tools should be explained more details. For example, as
opposed to "software that creates Web content" maybe "Code Editors,
Content Management Systems, or Save-as tools and word processors".

* An example for inter-dependencies is good, it grounds the abstract
jargon into something real life. ...but, "Developer" somewhat confuses
me since (even though the documents earlier mentions that the group of
developers includes content authors) it usually refers to a programmer
(Web Developer vs. Content Author). How about the following:

 - Technical Specifications: HTML Grammar defines the ALT attribute of
the IMG element
 - WCAG, ATAG: HTML Techniques define how to implement the ALT attribute
for accessibility
 - Authoring Tools: a Content Management System allows, encourages and
provides help on the ALT attribute
 - Developers: a Content Author provides equivalent ALT text when adding
image content
 - Evaluation Tools: help check for appropriate ALT text
 - UAAG: HTML Techniques defines how user agents should handle the ALT
attribute
 - User Agent: Browsers provide human and machine interface to the ALT
attribute
 - Assistive Technologies: a Braille Display receives the ALT text from
the browser
 - Users know how to get the ALT from their user agent and/or assistive
technology as needed


Regards,
  Shadi


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Shawn Lawton Henry
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 05:30
To: 'EOWG'
Subject: [components] concept draft ready for more review and comment



EOWG,

I made changes to Components of Web Accessibility based on our
discussion at last EOWG meeting:
- requirements:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/components#requirements (read these
first!) 
- latest version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/components
- changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/components
- previous version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/components-old2 

*Please* remember that this is an early *concept* draft. We need to
focus the review now on making sure that the information is correct and
generally conveyed how we want it to be conveyed. We likely will not
have time in the next discussion to talk about specific wording. Please
focus your review and comments on the following *in this order!:

1. turn off the images!
1a. is the content correct? (not is the wording good, but are the
general ideas right)
1b. is anything missing? (remembering that we want to keep it as short
and simple as feasible, and not tackle all issues in this one document)
1c. does the general approach work?

2. looking at the images now - (note that the little computers & such
are NOT the exact images - those are bad clipart placeholders for now
and would be replaced!)
2a. do the images convey what we want them to convey? would there be a
better way to visually convey what is said in the text?

3. overall presentation and flow
3a. does the overall presentation and flow work?

Here are some notes on issues I dealt with during this last revision:

I. Image showing relationship, not flow

I think a fundamental problem with the images from last version is that
the text talked about how things worked together in accessibility (e.g.,
content and user agents/AT together play the direct role in
accessibility), yet the images with arrows felt like it ought to be a
flow (e.g., the user interacts with user agents/AT to get to content).
So I rethought how that might better be presented -- that is, aspects
working together to form a system. I tried a puzzle analogy - which is
shown at:
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/components#puzzle
(If we went with something like that, I don't think we'd want the
guidelines as puzzle pieces like the third image. Instead, I think we'd
want them separate with arrows pointing to the pieces...)

The latest version has images similar to the last, without the arrows. I
wonder if that solves the problem better?

II. Users are also developers

We discussed the issue of the stereotype that the Web has "users" who
view content and "developers" who create content -- versus Web
interaction being both viewing and creating content. I started to try to
represent this better in the image, and it got very complex.

My current feeling is that we want to keep these images as simple as
feasible and match current thinking and not try to tackle that
misconception here. So the latest version does not represent that idea
in the images -- however, the text has:
- (Users can also be developers.)
- developers' (including designers, coders, etc. - which also includes
"users" who contribute content and people with disabilities)

III. Technical specs apply to almost all components

What we want to emphasize is that WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, and W3C technical
specifications are developed in coordination with each other. The
technical specs also relate to the other components. Including that in
the current image looks like:
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/components#lines

Again, I think in order to keep the image as simple as feasible and
focusing on the most important points we are trying to make, I don't
think we want all those lines. So the latest version does not represent
that idea in the images -- however, the text has:
- Authoring tool, evaluation tool, user agent, assistive technology, and
content developers all refer to relevant technical specifications

OK, enough for now!

Best,

~ Shawn
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 17:33:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:52 UTC