W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 02:34:23 +0200
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 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>
Message-ID: <20110506023423638015.657908da@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Laura Carlson, Thu, 5 May 2011 19:13:32 -0500:
> 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.

Sounds good to me. 

> The use case section is core to  the
> argument to reinstate, so it probably not be a good idea remove that.

I'm not sure that it is critical to have then on-page. May be a subpage 
with all the use cases, and a direct link to each use case from the 
front page? That is mention them from front page, but keep the actual 
description on the subpage?

Main thing, from my point of view, is that a) the front page can be 
read as meaningful in itself and b) that it is clear that the subpages 
are also part of the CP.

Leif
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 00:35:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT