W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Adding a warning to Working Drafts pointing to Editor's Drafts

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:10:51 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <6FAAC819-A52E-424A-8C2F-54481110A726@apple.com>
To: "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>

On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:02 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote:

> Good evening,
> 
> Will this take into consideration the recommendations that:
> 
> a. The warning should be identified with a heading, and

We can see how it looks once it is in the ED.

> 
> b. The 'greyed' color needs to be WCAG 2.0 level AA compliant (i.e. 4.5:1 contrast)?

The greyed color is gone and is unrelated to this proposed warning. The whole Editor's Draft was temporarily greyed out, but that is now resolved.

> Also, how persistent will the hiding of the warning be and will this mechanism be accessible?

I volunteer to test a warning-enabled draft with a screen reader, once we have one available.

Regards,
Maciej

> Regards,
> Everett
> 
> On 2010-10-29, at 12:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote
> 
>> 
>> If everyone is ok with this wording, I think the right next step would be for editors to provide updated Editor's Drafts that include it. Maybe Ian can go first so other editors have an example to copy from. It seems the general sentiment is in favor of a warning that shows up no matter where you are in the draft, but can be hidden to avoid distraction.
>> 
>> Once we have Editor's Drafts with that change, then, since a number of folks feel that adding it is an urgent need, the Chairs are open to doing a quick publication round right after TPAC to add in the warnings, rather than waiting until the next 3-month heartbeat.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Here's a suggested slight tweak to the warning wording, to highlight the fact that the Editor's Draft may have additional bug fixes, which seems like the key thing we are trying to convey to implementors. Any objections to this version?
>>> 
>>> ---------
>>> "This is a work in progress! 
>>> 
>>> For the latest updates from the HTML WG, possibly including important bug fixes, please look at the <a>editor's draft</a> instead."
>>> ---------
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:19:43 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anyway, now that it has been brought up - what do you think of the
>>>>>>> warning box in the recently published Navigation Timing Working Draft:
>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-navigation-timing-20101026/>?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it needs to be significantly more prominent; in particular, I
>>>>>> think it should be visible at all times. Most people don't see the status
>>>>>> section, especially if they just followed a link deep into the multipage
>>>>>> version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, can't believe how many times our engineers get tripped up by this. Pretty clear that the age of bookmarks is over and people just search and follow the first hit -- which often is the wrong one in case of standards, but that is not made clear.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Let's continue discussion of the details in the warning in a separate subthread (changed topic).
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Maciej
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 05:11:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:16 GMT