Re: EOWG: Another pass at an image of the WCAG 2.0 documents

Thanks for the comments, Liam. Replies below.

Liam McGee wrote:
> 
> Hi alla - I wasn;t there for Friday's discussions so apologies if these 
> suggestions cover old ground.
> 
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> * Generally what do you think of the first image layout with WCAG in 
>> the center?
> 
> Looks good to me
> 
>> * Ideas for tweaking the first image?
> 
> Keep size of each box the same (currently tehcniques and undersanding 
> are bigger)

Hum, well, one of the things that we'd like to communicate with the image is that the How to Meet and WCAG 2.0 documents are quite small, and the Techniques and Understanding are bigger - although that's not a priority. Also, if we made the How to Meet and WCAG 2.0 boxes bigger, would it look odd to have blank space in them or or space between items?
 
> Change the link text 'Techniques titles' to 'Techniques' or 'Links to 
> Techniques'. Don't present it as a link (blue, underlined) unless you 
> want people to click on it fruitlessly.

Let's discuss this at EOWG on Friday...

> I am concerned that it's not necessarily clear which parts of the 
> document are text/form elements and which are images of text / images of 
> form elements on other pages. I think we should have a stronger visual 
> signal to differentiate them. For example, put all diagrams in a 
> standard outline box (suggest #ccc single px box with 5px white internal 
> border, polaroid photo style), with a dark gey background to the main 
> graphical elements, and with a figure caption beneath the whole thing.

started doing. will clean up later...

> Or do a torn paper edge to them and dropshadow.
> 
>> * Overall suggestions for this page?
> 
> Make more apparent that the 'customize this Quick Reference' graphic is 
> a graphic and is not a set of clickable elements. Do this by e.g. making 
> it slightly smaller and setting it in a border as suggested above. Or 
> possibly even just getting rid of it.

added border & figure label.

>> * Specific suggestions on the wording, or on the links image?
> 
> I'm finding it hard to read at 1440x900 in a  full screen window. 
> Suggest setting an em-based max-width.

Will consider when polishing it up later...

Thanks,
~Shawn

> Regards to all
> 
> Liam
> 
> 

-- 
Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
phone: +1-617-395-7664
e-mail: shawn@w3.org

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 18:57:47 UTC