W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-site@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Rev. Intro to Slide Set

From: Carol at Kognitive.com <carol@kognitive.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:12:15 -0500
Message-ID: <013601c46855$9262e4c0$7900a8c0@VAIO>
To: <public-wai-eo-site@w3.org>
My response to Charmane's questions:

> * What are our standards for header usage? Do we need, for
>example, a header "Introduction"? This intro doc has "Introduction" in the
>title (H1), as the first H2), and in the first sentence of Charmane's draft
>- overkill.
I agree - I think the Title is enough.

> * Is the title of the slide show "Online Overview of the Web
>Accessibility Initiative" or "Overview of the Web Accessibility Initiative"?
>I would vote for the latter, as it's obvious that it's online when viewed
>over the Web, but could be offline when someone is using it for a
>presentation. All our docs are online.

I agree - remove "Online"

> * Do we want to let people modify the slide show?
We discussed allowing people to download the show - if they download it they should be able to alter it any way they please.

> * Are there instances when we want to include the entire URI
>with the link name? If so, when and what format? For example, Overview of
>Web Accessibility <http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/overview.html>
>(http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/Overview.html). My vote would be to not
>include the links on the page (I don't think we do this now) and consider a
>printer-friendly style that would include the links. If we do include the
>URI, it should not be a live link: it would then be a redundant link for a
>screen reader, as well as sounding like gibberish in a links list.
I think if we are going to include links it would be best if they were live (despite the annoyance for screen readers).  I like the idea of a printer-friendly style - however that would mean more upkeep.

Carol J. Smith
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:54 UTC