W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > March 2012

Re: comments on Mobile Accessibility call

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:05:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4F69A7D6.80603@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Peter Thiessen <peterdev001@gmail.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi All, I'm lecturing until 14:30 - someone else will need to make 
changes...

Si.

PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.

=======================
Simon Harper
http://simon.harper.name/about/card/

University of Manchester (UK)
Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk


On 21/03/2012 00:24, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Peter, Yeliz, and Simon,
>
> Thank you for continuing to work on the Mobile Accessibility call. It 
> looks much clearer now. Below are some comments on the current drafts:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Accessibility_Call
>  - I think Jeanne has raised this before but the template sections 
> listed in section "Contributing" does not seem to match the call text, 
> especially where it says "this symposium aims to bring researchers and 
> practitioners together to scope the extent and magnitude of existing 
> mobile accessibility [...] We specifically seek reports and guides". 
> Having "the problem they tried to solve" after that just seems like a 
> mismatch to me.
>  - Minor: I think this same list of template section needs some 
> editorial refinement, it does not read as well as the rest of the text.
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile
>  - The section "Background" seems quite thrown together. It needs some 
> editorial work to get a better flow and grammar. In particular, please 
> continue the sentence lengths, I already got lost in the first. Also, 
> it seems that there are several points being made at the same time and 
> they may need to be separated out and more clearly explained each.
>  - Consider separating out the questions listed in the "Objectives" 
> section into its own section. It is quite a dense (but a useful) list 
> and confuses the section. Maybe a sub-heading?
>  - Also, The first paragraph of the "Objectives" section seems to have 
> similar issues to the "Background" section (flow, complexity, grammar, 
> and sentence lengths). It may be useful to break out the inline list 
> into a bulleted list, as this may also help readability and skimming.
>
>
> Regards,
>   Shadi
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 10:05:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 March 2012 10:05:42 GMT