Alt text enforcement dialogue: feature request
Hi Vlad
I’m evaluating XStandard for a punter and am pretty impressed so far. They want to use it as an editor for amending content to their site, and also for converting some huge Word files into decent html.
I’m pasting a twenty-five page Word doc into the editor to test the code it produces, and have a usabilty problem with the dialogue box that asks me to decide if an image is decorative or presentational.
My difficulty is that the document has many images and I’ve no way to know from the dialogue box which image it’s asking about.
Any chance of the dialogue box showing a thumbnail of the image in question?
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
I’m evaluating XStandard for a punter and am pretty impressed so far. They want to use it as an editor for amending content to their site, and also for converting some huge Word files into decent html.
I’m pasting a twenty-five page Word doc into the editor to test the code it produces, and have a usabilty problem with the dialogue box that asks me to decide if an image is decorative or presentational.
My difficulty is that the document has many images and I’ve no way to know from the dialogue box which image it’s asking about.
Any chance of the dialogue box showing a thumbnail of the image in question?
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
brucelawson wrote: |
Any chance of the dialogue box showing a thumbnail of the image in question? |
This seems feasible. We’ll try to get this into version 2.
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
Mega.
Any E.T.A. on when version 2 will be? It’s quite a deal-breaker for my clients, as it seriously inhibits the ability to convert Word documents.
EDIT:I’m a fool; the xstandard website says
May 2007: XStandard 2.0 official release
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
Any E.T.A. on when version 2 will be? It’s quite a deal-breaker for my clients, as it seriously inhibits the ability to convert Word documents.
EDIT:I’m a fool; the xstandard website says
May 2007: XStandard 2.0 official release
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
We got this working in a dev build as shown in the screen shot below:
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
Would it make more sense for “Preview” to be directly underneath “Image URL”? You need to see the graphic before you know what information and options would be appropriate to it.
Cerbera wrote: |
Would it make more sense for “Preview” to be directly underneath “Image URL”? You need to see the graphic before you know what information and options would be appropriate to it. |
That would seem logical. But according to ISO, “required” form controls must be listed first. The exception to this rule in our image properties dialog box is the “Decorative image” control because the required “Alternate text” control is dependent on the “Decorative image” control.
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
If that exception is acceptable, would another exception for the preview also be acceptable? Since the preview isn’t an input, does the ordering of fields even apply to it?
I would imagine that the goal of whatever ISO standard you are working to is increasing the usability of the product. Since users will usually be unable fill in the fields until they see the image, making an exception to accommodate this reality would surely be in line with the spirit of the standard?
If you moved the preview to the start of the form, maybe that would sidestep the requirements of the standard.
I would imagine that the goal of whatever ISO standard you are working to is increasing the usability of the product. Since users will usually be unable fill in the fields until they see the image, making an exception to accommodate this reality would surely be in line with the spirit of the standard?
If you moved the preview to the start of the form, maybe that would sidestep the requirements of the standard.
I’m curious, which ISO standard is it?
Nomensa / AlastairC
Nomensa / AlastairC
Vlad Alexander wrote: |
That would seem logical. But according to ISO, “required” form controls must be listed first. |
whichever ISO that is, it sounds flawed, as it doesn’t allow for logical grouping of controls. for instance, what about if you wanted to have firstname and lastname in a dialog set to required, but also offer an input for middle name initial? would you have to stick that input right after all other required fields? sounds very fishy to me, if that’s the case…
Patrick H. Lauke / splintered
Alastc wrote: |
I’m curious, which ISO standard is it? |
ISO 9241-17 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Part 17: Form filling dialogues
I am unable to quote directly from this document because of copyright issues but I will paraphrase section 5.2.3. It basically states that within a given grouping of controls, required controls should be positioned before optional controls unless that position is not appropriate to the given task.
So, in XStandard’s image properties dialog box, is the placement of controls as shown in the screen shot in a previous post inappropriate? If so, why?
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
Vlad Alexander wrote: | ||
That would seem logical. |