W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: Images/ALT

From: Gregg Vanderheiden via Post Office <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:29:14 -0600
Message-ID: <01BD2A3C.DE1EB280.po@trace.wisc.edu>
To: "'dd@w3.org'" <dd@w3.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
We concur

Originally we had the Master version reorganized to 4.0 format to 
facilitate discussion during the 4.0 devel.

As the current guidelines and checklist evolved we have been moving away 
from that now that 4.0 is out.  We were discussing a reorg but decided to 
wait til we got an official version out.... then revisit as Daniel has also 
suggested.   In the end, the organization should be decided based on what 
the authors will find most useful.
- the guidelines should be organized to facilitate learning and lookup.
- the checklist should be organized to facilitate recall and checking a 
page.

We wont be re-orging for a little while since we still have to get all the 
content and input in.... but comments and ideas on re-organization are 
welcome.

Gregg




-- ------------------------------
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:	Daniel Dardailler [SMTP:danield@w3.org]
Sent:	Monday, January 26, 1998 8:52 AM
To:	Ian B. Jacobs
Cc:	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:	Re: Images/ALT


> The current organization of the guidelines roughly mirrors the
> organization
> of the HTML specification, and this approach certainly has
> its advantages.

I personnally never saw a big advantage in that approach. The HTML
spec is rarely something people read from begining to end, so very few
people know its order. I actually read the HTML spec that way, but I
probably remember the chapter ordering because of the HAG document,
not the other way around.

Of course, this doesn't preclude linking from the HAG to the HTML
spec, but keeping them in synch isn't really helping here.

> While I'm not convinced that recasting the current guidelines
> along these axes would make a huge difference

We need more "user" (author that is) review to decide.

> There is no mention of anything HTML-specific until
> the implementation section. Thus, the guidelines
> become applicable to other languages as well.

I like it. How important this is will depend on how we define XML
accessibility wrt HTML.

In any case, I would keep the current organization unchanged for this
coming public draft, and revisit the issue later.
Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 10:31:52 GMT

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