RE: GL 2.5 L2 SC2

I had an action item to write a SC for this Guideline that would "Help users
avoid mistakes"

The Guideline says: 

"Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them."

Yet we have no SC to address helping users avoid mistakes. I am hoping to
come up with something that is testable. I think it is important to help
users avoid mistakes and I think it is too bad we don't have any SC to
address this. I will keep bouncing it around and see if I can come up with
anything. (An ounce of prevention....)

If we have no SC to address preventing errors, then perhaps we need to pull
the first part of the line from the SC "help users avoid mistakes" if we
can't offer any SC to address that. That would be a shame, I think.

I did about 4 days work on this Guideline for the Guide Doc, a few months
ago. Several Accessibility consultants, well respected in the field,
recommended me some excellent techniques to help users avoid mistakes and I
think that would be a shame if we can't find a place to legitimately hang
them so they will actually be used, rather than sitting in an optional pile.

The items are at:
http://www.eramp.com/david/general/


There are 10 techniques there and they are currently all in the optional
pile.

One technique that has no home yet is:

(2) Do not use the same words or letter combinations to begin each item of
the list.	(I think this a very important technique that has no home
yet and is not in the techniques anywhere)

http://www.eramp.com/david/general/spellcheck_2.5l3sc1_dm_2005-03-14_2.htm




.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

 www.eramp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:09 PM
To: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; 'WAI GL (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: GL 2.5 L2 SC2


Not sure I understand your question - but the sufficient techniques have to
respond directly to the success criterion requirements.  In this case -
things to do when the content/server detects an error by the user.   (some
of these look preventative rather than responsive.  Those are good ideas but
not required by success criterion.

Follow? 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:50 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; WAI GL (E-mail)
Subject: RE: GL 2.5 L2 SC2

Hmm. I guess we need to say something like

"Providing a text message that identifies the field as mandatory"

These are all meant to identify what suggestions to provide, and would
presumably use the same techniques as GL 2.5 L2 SC1 to report to the
user. Should we explicitly refer to the error reporting techniques from
that SC?

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; 'WAI GL (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: GL 2.5 L2 SC2
> 
> Thanks Loretta
> 
> Could you look at the SUFFICIENT parts again?
> 
> As I look at them they don't match the success criterion which is
about
> "if
> an error is detected...."
> But the "sufficient" items all talk about preemptive prompting rather
than
> recovery techniques.
> 
> These are all good  -- but just phrased wrong.  I think it is fairly
easy
> to
> fix.
> 
> For convenience they are listed below.
> 
> 
> 
> Situation A: A mandatory field contains no information:
> 
>     * Identifying the field as mandatory.
> 
> Situation B: Information for a field is required to be in a specific
data
> format:
> 
>     * Providing examples of the data format, or
>     * Describing the data format, or
>     * Providing values in the data format that are "similar" to the
user's
> entry
> 
> Situation C: Information provided by the user is required to be one of
a
> limited set of values:
> 
>     * Providing the list of acceptable values and highlighting values
(if
> any) that are "similar" to the user's entry, or
>     * Allowing the user to choose from a list of acceptable values, or
>     * Describing the set of acceptable values, or
>     * Describing the set of acceptable values and providing values
from
> the
> list that are "similar" to the user's entry.
> 
> [edit]
> Technology-independent techniques for providing suggestions to the
user
> 
>     * Providing information about the number of input errors,
suggestions
> for corrections for each item, and instructions on how to proceed
>     * Providing suggestions for correction as the first item (or one
of
> the
> first items) of content, or emphasizing this information in the
content.
>     * Displaying errors and suggestions in the context of the original
> form.
> (e.g., redisplaying a form where input errors and suggestions for
> correction
> are highlighted and displayed in the context of the original form.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:03 PM
> To: WAI GL (E-mail)
> Subject: GL 2.5 L2 SC2
> 
> 
> One of my action items was to clean up the guide for GL 2.5 L2 SC2, on
> providing suggestions for corrections to input errors. You can find
the
> revised version at
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guide_to_2.5_L2_SC_2
> 
> 
> Loretta Guarino Reid
> lguarino@adobe.com
> Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 22:23:44 UTC