sandbox for ATAG-TECHS

Happy New Year everyone!

Here is the location of the sandbox I set up:
http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/overview.html
Keep http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/ in mind as a backup in
case some of the links within the document fail. Uh, I had interesting
experiences (read "nightmare") setting this up and pretty much started over.
As I write this mail, there are very likely still some links that are messed
up, and I have not had time yet to follow up and see if I have included all
items from past discussions that have been agreed upon. If any, the material
will match the current draft from October that is online. These addresses
are correct at least. I am reconstructing as fast as I can!

I thought other people's docs should be handy so...

Libby's doc is at
http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/tier2-fromLiddy/.

Tim's discussion of Guideline 1 and ISO16071 and IBM is at
http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/Guideline1-ISO16071-etc/
Remember there are 2 proposals from Tim.

I was intending to incorporate them but got behind with my technical
problems, and then figured we should/could just as well discuss the matters
first anyway.

Some comments on my tasks and thoughts about everything:

I was looking at the overall structure and navigation and usability of the
information itself in the ATAG-TECHs document. I wasn't quite sure of how to
indicate what I had done, since some of my ideas were not exactly comments.
I, like Liddy, used span tags with the class that makes them bold and red. I
strongly advocate the use of double at-signs as we have been using - they
are easy to find. I also suggest as I have done for my own comments, that we
put initials at the beginning of the comments. I have something like @@KM:
what about Wombat?@@ I thought about dates too, because I don't know how
long some comments have been floating about without any agreement or
decision being made. The initials tell you who made the comment in case
there was a need for further explanation and discussion.

Anyway, what I found hard to illustrate was the revamping I did of the
overview (the first page of TECHS). For example:

* I moved the TOC just after the Abstract. Provides orientation ASAP!
* I removed the 8 examples of authoring tools because they are in the
glossary. I felt they were a bit cumbersome on this page. The 2 notes at the
bottom of the page were moved up to the Introduction because it seemed the
kind of "what you should know before reading" type info. I made a link here
to the Examples in the Glossary.
* The status needed cleaning up - there were several duplicate paragraphs. 
* I changed "Techniques for Checkpoint n.n" to "Checkpoint n.n" - this was
one example of a sense of unnecessary bulk that could be trimmed. It
bothered me visually and I could imagine a screen reader driving someone
crazy repeating the same phrase again and again!
* I would really like to remove the Glossary text from the ATAG 2.0
guidelines themselves, but want approval first and the TECHs had first
priority anyway. The setup would be just as with the overview doc (the first
page of TECHS) - you get a link to Glossary and that is that. One place to
maintain, instead of 2.

I will carry out more of this type of trimming and rearranging throughout
the document - all with the aim of improving the reading and understanding.

I also want to do some final proofreading/editing once everyone's work is
in. I would be happy to be one of the final
proofreading/editing/get-it-on-the-web people! ;-) I am not sure how to deal
with the actual updating to W3.org of any material we complete. I assume
that Matt and/or Jan have advice and can tell me what I should do with the
files? That kind of discussion is perhaps more technical than necessary for
this listserv so we can discuss it between the 3 of us?

Talk to you all later tonight!

regards, Karen Mardahl

Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 14:10:25 UTC