W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: [TECH] use cases diagrammed

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:38:25 -0500 (CDT)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405270932550.24839-100000@socrates.scdns.net>

I'm glad to see even more real-world usability testing (in the form of 
interviews) on the topic of WAI documentation. Keep it up!

> It has become apparent to some people on the Techniques committee that these
> two functions work against each other. If we are to provide quick, simple
> access to technology specific techniques then we need to provide a simple
> menu where users can choose the technology they want to fulfill a guideline

This is the sort of thing that a good plain-English (for example) rewrite 
and a really smashing information architect could easily make work.

For example:

	Guideline 1.1

	[text]

	Who's it for?
	How does it improve accessibility?
	How do I do it?
		Techniques for specific technologies
			[list]
		Techniques for any technology

(Just off the top of my head there.)
 
> 1)       The locator/cop is the Navigation part of the Techniques Gateway.

"Locator" is halfway to the right word here. "Traffic cop" is pretty 
awful, and reminds me of mid-'80s magazine articles trying to explain what 
DOS was.

> In the guidelines document after each success criteria there would be 2
> links:
> 
> [Checklists]   [Techniques]

If you do that, some WCAG 1.0 fundamentalist is gonna come after you 
complaining that you made two links (or four, or 20) with the same link 
text, not that it matters to anyone but the fundies.

Also, I count three top-posted messages in the one I'm replying to now.  
Please cut it out.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:38:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT