W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Reference card: some considerations

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:43:37 -0400
Message-Id: <Version.32.19980903114018.00dffc80@host.igs.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Cc: "Stella O'Brien" <smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk>
At 02/09/98 09:55 AM +0000, you wrote:
>Timescales preclude a well designed set of questions: please try and answer
>the questions and points below.
>
>1 Do you support the notion of a reference card which fits onto a business
>card?
 Yes

Comment: There is no way to make a similarly useful portable version in any
alternate (print) format.  But if the target audience is clearly sighted
people
with good vision, then I have no objection.  The card is good for distributing
at conferences as memory joggers.

2 Would a business card format be intended for
a) a general audience Yes
b) a more specific, sophisticated audience No
>
Comment: see question 1 above
>
3 If WAI EO could only afford one format for the reference card, should it be
a) the business card size No
b) a longer, more 'pocket-size' card Yes 
>
Comment:  At a presentation, I would rather hand out something readable and
slightly detailed than either the full guidelines or a business card.
>
4 Because of the size constraints, should a business card version
a) cover the current spread of issues which more closely conforms to the PAGL
No
b) concentrate only on 3 issues (plus introduction and 'Get more information'
sections) No

Comment: or as many priority 1 items as will fit best.
>
>5 Based on the current content of the reference cards, if the business card
>version were to address only three issues, what would they be? I assume
>that everybody would agree on 'text versions of visuals' etc. but which
>other 2 items would you include? Would the 'text versions of visuals' be
>expanded to cover visuals; applets; complex displays (charts, graphs etc.);
>icons etc.?
>
Comment:  don't think three is enough.
>
>6 The content of the reference cards is consciously written in a plain
>English style, and it avoids the use of html terms (partially because of
>the writing style; partly to avoid quick obselescence).
a) should we retain the plain English? Yes 
b) should the cards refer to html terms? Yes 
>
Comment:  plain English, in close association with HTML terms may help explain
the function of HTML to beginners. 

Hopeful, but not convinced, that my comment are not oxymoronic (or just
moronic).

Cheers!
Chuck

----
Starling Access Services
 "Access A World Of Possibility"
  e-mail: info@starlingweb.com
   URL: http://www.starlingweb.com
    Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983
Received on Thursday, 3 September 1998 12:44:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:24 GMT