W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:42:31 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.0.19.2.20000921071157.009e0570@mail.gorge.net>
To: seeman@netvision.net.il, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 09:12 AM 9/21/00 +0000, lisa kestenbaum wrote:
>review the text with these considerations in mind prior to publication on 
>the web.

WL: Perhaps a full stop after "mind"?

No matter how old I get, I still have a hard time becoming oriented to 
"orientate". It's the same kind of "bloviation" as we find when what 
commentators do isn't to comment (as it was in my youth <g>), but to 
"commentate".

LK:: Insinuations and trends that are intended to be identified by 
analyzing the structure, should be explicitly stated in the summary.

WL: In a search for excellence occasional nuggets occur and this should IMO 
be topmore (How's that for a corruption of "topmost"?).

LK::"  [from 3.5]"...provide abbreviated labels..." [from 3.10]"...provide 
expansions for abbreviations and acronyms..."

WL: These (and there may be others) might benefit from "gathering"?

LK::  3.11 "...This can be improved by:
a) Restricting these items to one section of the page can help the user 
retain focus.
b) For a content filled site, one may further provide the user with an 
option view without banners..."


WL: some grammar change ("can" to "to" in a and for b "For a content-filled 
site, providing an optional banner-free view")?

LK:: "4, Design for ease browsing and navigation"

WL: Either "ease of" or "easy"?

LK:: "To help the User's navigate: [The old "gratuitous apostrohe"?]
a) They should be easy to locate within the over-all structure of the content.
b) They should be consistent across web pages or related documents?

WL: I'm confused about to whom "they" refer - surely we don't need to 
locate consistent users across Web pages <g>.

LK:: "...examples of this includes..." and "...all links have a textual 
equivalents...."

WL: Number, please?

In summary I think this is really good stuff or I wouldn't be making these 
picky little proofreads.

I vote for incorporation!


--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 10:44:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT