W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: unifying the output of different groups

From: Gregg Vanderheiden via Post Office <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 18:40:28 -0600
Message-ID: <01BD07F6.96006740.po@trace.wisc.edu>
To: "'Al Gilman'" <asgilman@access.digex.net>, "ATTN: Cl & Gv" <w3c-wai-cg@w3.org>
Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Point of clarification.

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
gv@trace.wisc.edu    http://trace.wisc.edu
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From:	Al Gilman [SMTP:asgilman@access.digex.net]
Sent:	Thursday, December 11, 1997 1:57 PM
To:	ATTN: Cl & Gv
Cc:	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:	unifying the output of different groups

I'll introduce my comments with ASG:: 

to follow up on what Chuck Letourneau said:

> Per discussion at the Austin, Texas, WAI meeting, there are 5 +
> 1 levels to the guidelines

> 1) short one or two page intros for managers and other target
> groups.
> 2) an overview of people with different disabilities, the
> assistive technologies they use, and the problems they
> encounter when using the web.
> 3) Checklists ( 1- for web authors, 2 - for browser
> manufacturers, 3 - for toolmakers, 4 - Screen reader
> manufacturers).
> 4) Guidelines ( 1- for web authors, 2 - for browser
> manufacturers, 3 - for toolmakers, 4 - Screen reader
> manufacturers).
> 5) The Master Guidelines Document which includes in depth
> information on the problems and recommendations for web
> authors, browser manufacturers, toolmakers, and Screen reader
> manufacturers in one master integrated document.
>  +) Plus a resource site for materials, examples, case studies
> etc in support of web access.

ASG:: What I recall hearing in Austin was that the GL group was
asked to prepare a draft "site map" for the integrated
resource that multiple groups were eventually going to maintain.

I think that there is reason to question whether "one master
integrated document" is the best model for how it all goes
together, and that a draft "site map" was the requested next
step in exploring this issue.

Does the GL group want to take a crack at a site map for "the
guidelines knowledge resource" as it would exist under continuing
maintenance in service to a continuing EO effort, or do y'all
want somebody else to draft something?

-- Al Gilman

PS:
Pedantic notes on mapping workflow into email:

This is going To: the CG list because the primary topic of this
message is coordinating the work of different groups.

It has a Cc: to the GL list because I am responding to mail that
has been delivered to all of you and because for your information
this may eventually affect the scope or structure of the
deliverable you are working on.

It as an (ATTN: Cl & Gv) in the To: line because that's actually
who I am asking to respond (not just anybody on CG), and I don't
want to litter Chuck and Gregg's inboxes with more than two
copies of the message...
Received on Saturday, 13 December 1997 19:43:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:57 GMT