W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2006

Components "slides" - more questions

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:14:15 -0500
Message-ID: <450874A7.9000900@w3.org>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>

Dear EOWG Participants:

Below are questions I had when working on the latest revision of the Self-Study "Slides" for Components of Web Accessibility at:
	http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all-extended.htm

Feel free to share your ideas in e-mail; we may or may not discuss some of these during the teleconference.
(numbering continued from below)

5. How does "Ingredients" work (instead of Components)?

6. The 4th slide and related slides have "Making Web Content". Is "Creating Web Content" better than "Making"? Note the parallel is "Getting Web Content" and we want this to use very simple, easy to understand language.

7. What about "usually" in: "Web content developers usually use authoring tools and evaluation tools to create Web content."? The sentence is simpler without it; however it's not true that all "Web content developers use... evaluation tools..." OK to leave "usually" out anyway?

8. In Assistive Technologies Getting Web Content, is it useful to also include the "official" definition?

9. In Evaluation Tools in Making Web Content, should we add a note with links to Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html> and Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools List Search <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools>? While it would be useful, we don't want to clutter this with too many links to other documents.

10. In The Powerful Impact of High Quality Ingredients, shall we include "Once user agents and assistive technologies support it, users will learn how to use the feature", or not include it in order to simplify the slide since that's not a key point we want to make.

11. In For More Information, the last bullet, should we list any resources? If so, which ones? Perhaps How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process: Milestones and Opportunities to Contribute? Should we list a range to show breadth? Or list none to keep it simple?

All for now.
~Shawn 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: EOWG: Reading and Questions this week before 15 September 2006 Teleconference
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:42:05 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:41:57 -0500
From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
To: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>


Dear EOWG Participants:

Please review the following this week and send comments to the EOWG e-mailing list before the teleconference.

Self-Study "Slides" for Components of Web Accessibility

* Version A Rough Draft:
	http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all-extended.htm
Note that Version A:
- Includes alt text examples
- Has more coverage of the poor & good accessibility support, on 2 slides
- Puts the detailed descriptions on their own (6) slides

* Version B Rough Draft:
	http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all.htm
Note that Version B:
- Is very simple, without the alt text example
- Has less coverage of the poor & good accessibility support, on 1 slide
- Has only a few "slides" with "builds"

* Changelog and Requirements:
	http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-components-self

Note:
- These are rough drafts. I want to settle on the approach before refining the text and details.
- Images are also rough. I'll update them based on the approach we decide to take.

For review and comment:

1. Does the alt example help understand the concepts?  Or does it add unnecessary complication?

2. Should the detailed descriptions be grouped on the 2 slides (with builds) as in Version A, or separated on 6 slides, as in Version B?

3. How should the poor & good accessibility support be covered?

4. I suggest not calling these "slides" since they are intended for self-study and not presentation. How about calling them a:
a. Step-Through Overview
b. Walk-Through
c. ? other ideas... 

Best,
~ Shawn
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:14:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:42 GMT