Re: Hightlights comments

> (Sorry this is so late; in my timezone, Friday morning tends to be
> when I actually get around to thinking about EO, but I'll try to
> find some more rational schedule on an ongoing basis.)

And in mine it's very early to reply before the teleconference. :-)

> We did have some conversation about thinking of the Highlights as
> more "blog like" - having timestamps, exposed authorship, maybe a
> separate RSS feed, and (implicitly) having items systematically
> move down the page and off the end with time.  I possibly missed
> some of that discussion due to my connection problems.  I see we
> now have a generic "byline" for edition of the Highlights as a
> whole, and that works well for me. 

This was an idea in response to the request for exposing authorship. It is open for discussion.

> I do miss any kind of
> timestamp, in particular, to give some sense of the currency of
> these items.  If the highlights are going to all "turned over"
> once a month, it may be enough just to add this to the
> "Highlights" heading itself, rather than stamping each item.

We are still planning to have a date for each one. I/we were wasting time messing with the CSS for formatting the date when I/we needed to be concentrating on the content of the text, so I just commented out the date temporarily. Will add it back. :)

> Two minor nit-picks (which may be out of scope for today
> anyway, but just to log them):
> 
> - What's with the <br /> elements?  Maybe they are good, maybe
>   not, I don't quite understand what the intention was... For
>   what it is worth, they did disrupt my own reading, rather than
>   help it.

This is in response to Justin's comment last Friday about breaking them up, and also trying to limit vertical space so more is "above the fold". See also Justin's comment to the list. We definitely need to revisit this one.

Let's concentrate today on the content of the highlights.

On Monday the WAI Site Redesign Task Force (WSTF) will work on formatting the Highlights. You are very welcome to join that discussion.

> - Not so sure about hiding the <h2> in the footer from "visual"
>   user agents.  "How did I know?" you might ask? I toggled on the
>   Firefox outliner extension.  But then when I activated the
>   "Document Information" link in the outline, I didn't see any
>   "Document Information" heading in the document and got
>   confused.  Yes, this is an unusual use case, so make of it what
>   you will.  On the good side, I really liked the structure I saw
>   with the outliner; and I imagine this may work well to enhance
>   access for people with certain kinds of cognitive disability.

and screen reader access (e.g., navigating by heading)!

WSTF spent a lot of time on this issue. We plan to leave it for now. We might revisit it later.

(p.s. there are a few other "hidden" <h2>s...

>   With possible outliner use in mind, I would also be inclined to
>   add a header (<h2>? <h3>? for the "byline" or "editor" of the
>   Highlights...).

Except that we want to de-emphasize the highlights editor, if we even have it at all.

Thanks a million for the comments, Barry!

~ Shawn

Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 12:16:07 UTC