Re: FW: [minutes] 5 october telecon

Hello Loretta,

>I'm a bit confused about my action item. It sounds like the proposal is to 
>changing the general technique to "Writing section titles that are 
>descriptive" and turning the current techniques into prose that explain 
>why they contribute to making a title descriptive. Have I got this right? 
>I can't find any other examples of techniques that contain this kind of 
>explanation. In fact, the only example I could find at all was John's 
>writeup of SC 5.
>

Correct - we suggest combining the other proposed techniques as part of a 
general technique called "Writing section titles that are descriptive." 
Examples of general techniques:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20050630/meaning-doc-lang-id.html#meaning-id-nat-lang>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Sep/0009.html>

>The examples (and specifically the counter examples) I wanted to add were 
>addressed to the different items in the current list. I this going to be 
>confusing?

I don't think it will be confusing. As with each of these general 
techniques, you could move the examples there.  But, I guess I have to see it.

>The survey didn't ask about the current advisory techniques. Do we want to 
>keep all of them? Should any of them be combined in a similar way?

ah. oops. Here are my opinions:
#  Writing section titles so users can get an overview of the content by 
skimming them.
This seems related to the first two technique in sufficient - therefore, 
this seems to be part of the [new] general technique.

# Putting the most important words at the beginning of the section heading.
# Starting section titles with key words that distinguish them from other 
section titles and are unique.
These two seem to overlap.  I would also include them in the [new] general 
technique.

# Writing sections that only cover one specific idea.
This is not about section titles, but about sections.  I don't see which 
success criterion this would map to. I would remove it.

# Writing subsections of a section that provide more detailed explanation 
of the section.
Again, this is not about section titles. This seems more like a technique 
for L3SC5 - it seems similar to a summary of the content.

# Ordering sections at the same level of the hierarchy in order of importance.
Again, not about section titles but how to order the sections. I don't see 
which success criterion this would map to. I would remove it.

>I've done some preliminary clean-up and editing on the wiki, in case it is 
>helpful to see where I've gotten to.
>http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Guide_to_3.1_L3_SC4
>

Thank you.  Did you find the wiki easy to use? [I'm curious how well this 
will work for us. Hoping it painlessly facilitates progress rather than 
frustrates it.]

If you want more clarification, lemme know. I can give you a call and we 
can discuss.

Best,
--wendy

Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 18:21:22 UTC