- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:13:32 -0500
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Hello everyone, Thanks to all for your input. John wrote: > The overall length of that document is I think a concern [Plus a lot of concrete suggestions to make the doc which I am very, very grateful for]. We certainly can shorten it, John. But we should be careful not to lose the critical information that was vital to reopen the issue and will be critical in the adjudicating a new decision. Leif wrote: > Before discussing a new text, would it not be interesting to see if > Laura could shorten her text via the suggested means - namely by > moving stuff to sub pages ? This is could be a good way to make it shorter and without losing details. For instance I am open to taking some sections of the proposal and making sub-pages like the following: *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Hidden MetadataFallacy *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/SomethingforEveryoneNotEverythingForAnyone *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent ResearchOnlineTutorialsDocumentation *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent ResearchGuidelinesLawsPolicyStandards *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent ResearchUsers *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/SuggestedAlternativesAreNotViable *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Related SolutionsDoNotNegateNeed *http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/References Then we would link to those. The use case section is core to the argument to reinstate, so it probably not be a good idea remove that. Sam wrote: > It is my hopes that this input is received in the spirit it is > intended, namely "it is much better to hear about this now than when > it is too late to make corrections". Your input is very welcome and much appreciated, Sam. From your perspective is the length of the InstateLongdesc change proposal [1] a problem? Besides retaining the use case section and strengthening the evidence do you have any other suggestions? From your perspective are the "Suggested Alternatives Are Not Viable Solutions" and "Implementation" sections critical to retain in the main document. Or could they be linked to in sub-documents? Thanks. Best regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 00:13:59 UTC