RE: FW: [minutes] 5 october telecon

Thanks, Wendy. This is helpful feedback.

And I found the wiki pretty easy to use, once I discovered the link in
your previous message to how to use wikis. I definitely think that
having a common, current version of documents like this will be much
easier.

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:21 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: 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_L
3_
> 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 21:01:26 UTC