W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 19 April 2000

Details

Chair: Jutta Treviranus

Date: Wednesday 19 April 2000

Time: 4:00pm - 5:30pm Boston time (2000Z - 2130Z)

Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000


Agenda

The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest techniques draft is dated 8 March, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000308. Note that a new techniques draft is expected by the time of the meeting.

  1. Review outstanding action items
  2. New techniques draft to Interest Group
  3. Other business

Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

Action item review

New Techniques Draft

Present draftCMN default will be ATAG

JT the samples are more an evaluation than a sample implementation.

Action CMN get rid of "amaya doesn't do this"

/* pj leaves

JT after 4 we have techniques for the guideline. Can we integrate these?

CMN my approach is to get rid of the section after 4 as supreseded, but I will not do it unilaterally.

Proposed: remove the section and link to the appendix

WL suits me

MK suits me

Resolved: Replace "Techniques for this guideline" sections with links to the Appendix

Other Business - prompts

JT I proposed we remove the restriction on prompt that it requires author response. charles felt we should keep the requirement for author response. One concern is about constantly interrupting the author, but it has been pointed out that we do not dictate when prompting should occur

WL This doesn't have to do with configurability?

JT It does, and also with how we define prompt.

CMN I think we should make it clear in 3.1 that an author respose is required, but there is scope for configuring when.

WL I don't find it mutually exclusive to interrupt and encourage if you can configure

JR Issue comes up when the prompt is part of a larger prompt

JT charles you are suggesting that a prompt requires an immediate response.

CMN Yes.

MK It can be ignored

CMN You can dismiss the prompt

DB generally a prompt is awaiting input. I don't think we should start using it otherwise

JT There are other definitions

DB Right, but in this area it is the most common

WL Is a cursor a prompt?

CMN No, it is an alert

DB Yeah

JT A prompt means you can't go on

JR What about a dialog window that doesn't require anything, but are there

DB THey are not prompts

WL You can go on without typing anything there

CMN They are alerts

JT We are moving towards a restrictive definition, which Heather was concerned about

DB I am not sure if we were talking about definition or how often they wree required

DB There is a fine line between prompts and alerts

JT THe crux is when you have to deal with it? But do you have to deal with it then and there

DB So is the issue about configurability?

JT The issue is whether we require the user to make a response

MK For me it doesn't require information - you don't have to fill in the fields

WL But for other people it has different meaning

DB At Microsoft the program managers will think of something that makes you stop.

MK That isn't how I understood it

JT When we wrote this I thought we had a more lenient definition

CMN No, I thought the crux wsa that prompt required a response

JR Can't we just use prompts and alerts?

JT Alert doesn't work well as a term

MK I think a prompt is something that asks something and an alert is something that points

JT We need a word for something that encourages you to respond or asks, without requiring response

CMN dialogue?

DB MSPress doesn't have alert in the same way... Generally I tink people consider a prompt as something that asks for information

JR text, or choose actions?

WL Any - something that reuires you to respond.JR So something that says you have a problem, and just asks for an OK, is a prompt?

CMN yes

MK I don't see it like that

CMN The difference in our functrional definitions leads to the conclusionJT I see that there are problems in understanding the terms according to our definitions

JR example of issue - an attribute that you don't have to fill in.

CMN you may have an image dialogue asking for src, alt, etc. It is a dialogue, but not a prompt for missing content

WL Right

MK If you have a dialog with a number of fields, then the part that requires a response is where you press OK or cancel. FOr other fields you can still ignore them. Ther are different levels of where a response is required.

CMN There are examples were you have to deal with some fields in a dialog

JR The user can't tell if it is a prompt or an alert

CMN Sure, but that's OK. functional equivalence - you have to respond to the specific issue, then it is a prompt

DB Generally things tat are prompts aren't really asking for values to be filled in. It would be a hybrid if we had something that popped up and says you haen't done alt text

JT Problem is that there is an understanding of what it means. We have it in our guidelines.

MK We have to make very clear how we define the term, so different develepors can be sure they understand.

DB/JT The example given in the definition does not match the definition

DB There are also questions of whan and how we want people to be alerted - what are the requirements

JT What is the consensus - does a prompt defnitely require a respone?

JR Scenario: dialog comes up with lots of questions, you leave alt out, and then get prompted to add it and get the dialog back, and you jsut dismiss it

CMN That includes a prompt


Copyright 2000 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.


Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:13:13 $