W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > May 2004

Re: v0.6.6 Release?

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 07:34:02 +0200
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b02010203-1033-4D99FAABAA1F11D8B4B40030657B83E8@[193.157.66.23]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote:

>+1.  While at it, how about revising the headline a bit more; now it
>says "This page", which sounds like it's referring to the validation
>results page, not the one checked?  Dunno about the use of the word
>"page" either.  But I'm having a hard time coming up with a good and
>short enough replacement for the headline that would satisfy all of the
>above "requirements".  Perhaps just:
>
>Validation results ($doctype): pass|fail|tentative

I've actually been thinking lately about dropping the banner-ish display of
the status alltogether. Granted it solves the problem of making Validation
status abundantly clear, but several people have complained about it on
various grounds and it's a real bitch to work into the visual design of the
page (not to mention the number of conditionals in the code to emit it).

Right now I'm leaning towards making it simply the first or second row of the
header/metadata table at the top, and simply styling it in some garish (or
otherwise "LOOK AT ME!!!" manner).


The theory, which I haven't quite mulled through yet, is that the reason the
red/blue banner design was necessary as a workaround for the amount of clutter
at the top of results pages. If we clean that up — and it has been cleaned up
a little allready — the large banner thing shouldn't be as necessary.


In any case, that would make the natural way to phrase it be;

  Status: [Validates as [FPI|PrettyName]|] Failed; \d+ errors found.]

…or possibly…

    Status: [OK|Failed]
    Errors: \d+
  Warnings: \d+

…with the [FPI|PrettyName] given as the selected entry in the Doctype row
below.


Opinions?



>>But note that the difference is slight, and probably won't make much
>>difference in practice; my guess is that it'll be far too subtle a
>>distinction for the users (who lack the context).
>
>Agreed, but I think this is an improvement worth applying anyway (+ not
>only the headline, but also the paragraph below it (c|sh)ould be
>rephrased).

EXPN? Well, or "cvs ci/diff"... :-)



Oh, and BTW, see also my other message in this thread regarding timing of any
of these changes.


- -- 
"You gonna take advice from somebody who slapped DEE BARNES?!" -- eminem

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

iQA/AwUBQKxDSKPyPrIkdfXsEQKgDwCgr+Yz7NVmTk+Rxkk1HvZIemrhLGsAn04l
gZklgus8JGY4Fcalpt4gF+Zp
=HL8h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 02:03:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:44 GMT