Re: Techniques document: more comments on checkpoints 1.x

I've marked my comments with LRK::: to distinguish from earlier comments


>CR:: I don't understand this. Are you suggesting "It also describes methods
>for the software to modify documents so that they will conform to these
>guidelines."?

LRK:::Yes.


>> LRK:: important: in all cases, even if ALT text passes tests, show picture
>> and ALT text so that user can verify that ALT text is suitable.
>>
>CR:: We are designing a 'review' or 'verify' mode so that the user can
>review/verify what is actually in the document. I think this is what you're
>suggesting. We really don't want to present the user with items that are OK
>when they are in 'evaluate/repair' mode and only questionable items should
>be shown. When we get the 'review' mode working it will address some of your
>following comments.

The way I was thinking of it, this spec is just addressing the tool
capabilities and algorithms.  It doesn't describe user interface
considerations like how the output it organized.  So why not put it all in
one list for purposes of this document, regardless of the user interface.

If you want to also describe your user interface that would be great,
although I'd suggest putting it in a separate paper.  Or, you might go on
ahead since it's often more productive to comment on an actual user
interface than to talk in the abstract in advance.  Your call.

Personally, based on my experience going over web pages, I think I would
like to look at the images all at once since there's so much bad alt text
that would never get picked up.  But maybe when I actually experience your
interface who knows, I might switch over.  Your automatic checks will
certainly be good as initial screening of a site to see what's generally
going on.

Same comment applies to your other reference to these modes in LONGDESC
which I've omitted from this email.

>
>
>> >Suggestions for possible ALT text:
>>
>> LRK:: minor: reword: "Ways that program can automatically suggest alt
>text"
>>
>CR:: Daniel has made a suggestion that we use the more generic 'repair
>technique' text for these sort of suggestions. OK?

LRK::: I don't know what you mean

>
>
>> >Technique 1.1.K [priority 3] User notification for ASCII art
>> >
>> LRK:: signficant: algorithm for spotting ASCII art, e.g. series of n or
>> more punctuation characters or clusters of repeated letters...
>>
>CR:: Developing the algorithm will take a lot of work. Anybody got some free
>time?

To further encourage volunteers, how about giving the progmming interface
<grin, I guess>? 


>CR:: Good idea. I've heard that some servers can provide a set of links and
>associated coordinates for the image map if you ask for it.

LRK::: Wow! that would be great!


>CR:: This is a good idea. We would like to add a media player to A-Prompt
>for doing just this sort of thing. It likely won't get into this version
>though.


LRK:::  Glad it's in your plans and if not in version 1, no problem.  Like
I say, this isn't a contract of what you're doing next week <grin>. 

Thanks again for putting this all together!

Len
-------
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering
Temple University

Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
kasday@acm.org        
(215) 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)

Received on Thursday, 5 August 1999 17:42:42 UTC