W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Document structure

From: Paul Bohman <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:16:42 -0600
Message-ID: <00fa01c119fd$b6e02e10$20117b81@paul>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am slowly making progress on a few more layout issues. My efforts are incomplete, but with the new draft that Wendy just posted, I wanted to make sure that I get my ideas out a little more quickly while there is still time to incorporate them.

My latest draft is at http://www.webaim.org/wcag/wcag2_0_toc

Right now, my draft is a strange hybrid between my own last draft and Wendy's newest draft. The main points that I want to bring up are these:

1. I have now actually created true page breaks, so that people can get an idea of what that would be like.

2. I have created a visual outline around each of the checkpoints. It is a thin blue line surrounding the checkpoint itself, the definitions, benefits, and success criteria. This groups the information visually. 

3. In my last post on this subject, I suggested that some of the introductory materials be moved to go directly beneath the main guideline text in a paragraph or two (or more) in a sub-heading which I have called "overview". The name for this sub-heading is subject to discussion. *This differs from Wendy's current thinking* (at least as far as I am able to ascertain) of putting that content in the executive summary. Personally, I think that the executive summary should be shorter than that particular content (I am referring to the explanation of the "guiding principles"). I envision an executive summary that resembles an Abstract in a scholarly journal. Brief and concise. *I would like this issue discussed.*

4. We need to be consistent on our terminology with regard to "design principles" versus "guidelines" and "checkpoints." From my interpretation, the "design principles" and the "guidelines" are really synonymous. The term "design principles" is currently being used in a way which I think is not quite right. We are using it to describe the group of words "Presentation", "Interaction", "Comprehension", and "Technology considerations". None of these words are principles. They are merely semantic or cognitive organizers. I like these "organizers", by the way, but I don't think that it is accurate to call them "principles." I _do_ think that it could be accurate to call our guidelines principles, but I think that it would be best to choose one word or the other, rather than use both to mean the same thing.

5. I have added a rudimentary navigation system of purely textual links separated by vertical bars at both the top and the bottom of the page. I have also added a "next page | previous page" feature at the bottom. I realize that the next and previous page features can be taken care of with proper RDF/meta markup, and that there are more sophisticated methods for document navigation, but I am going for a rapid prototype here.

6. Just a thought: I added the word "checkpoint" before each of the checkpoints, so that it is clear what they are.


So that is what I have been doing today.

Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (www.webaim.org)
Center for Persons with Disabilities (www.cpd.usu.edu)
Utah State University (www.usu.edu)
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 16:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:48:35 UTC