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

RE: EOWG: Reading and Questions this week before 15 September 2006 Teleconference

From: Swan, Henny <Henny.Swan@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:05:58 +0100
Message-ID: <7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E105C5FB2B@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk>
To: "Shawn Henry" <shawn@w3.org>, "EOWG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

1. Does the alt example help understand the concepts?  Or does it add
unnecessary complication?
- The alt examples are good. It is always good to have examples showing
how things work in practice. It helps people clarify that they are
thinking along the right lines and grasped a concept or helps then
identify where they have not.

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?

- Unclear where the slides are.

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

- Unsure at present

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. Walkthrough
c. ? other ideas... 

- Walkthrough makes sense to me.

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

- I prefer the term "components" to ingredients. This may be because it
has always been referred to as components until now and I am more used
to it. If this is the case it will also be the case for other people who
have been using the WAI site.

Also feel the using "ingredients" undermines the importance of the
message. In version A there is a question mark over using a cooking
image. Not sure about using this as I feel that it may start to convey
to many metaphors etc that dilutes rather than enhances the key message
of the document.

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.

- "Creating" makes better sense, making is confusing because you expect
it to be creating and wonder why not.

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?

- How about "Most web developers use authoring tools..."

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

- Think so.

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.

- How about leaving them unlinked then adding them to "Further
information below". Simple is better.

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.

- Not sure as yet

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?

- Part of me wants to say none and keep it simple as these are slides
for a specific purpose. If the reader wants to go into any more detail
about these topics they go to the home page/introduction section, better
that than recreate a large chunk of links at the foot of the page.

Additional comments:

Both documents need more of an introduction and the concept of all three
components (as seen under the heading "Ingredients for Web
Accessibility") introduced in the introduction so as to set the scene,
and give the bigger picture rather than build up to it half way through
the document.





-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Shawn Henry
Sent: 13 September 2006 03:42
To: EOWG (E-mail)
Subject: EOWG: Reading and Questions this week before 15 September 2006
Teleconference
Importance: High


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#(6)
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. Walkthrough
c. ? other ideas... 

Best,
~ Shawn


-- 
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 12:06:20 GMT

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