Re: Completed restructuring Understanding 1.1.1

Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I don't understand the strategy for which words to mark in bold in the
> technique list labels. Especially the last one, where we highlight
> "not required".
My strategy was to highlight the part that was different from the rest -
the "short", "long", "not required", etc. Otherwise the phrase is
boilerplate, and easy to miss the distinction.

I've posted it with the entire phrase bolded. But I like it less. It's
harder to tell apart, and the paragraphs look like headings, which
they're not.
>
> While we are sorting the technique lists, should we also sort the
> Failures so that they are in numeric order?
I went ahead and sorted the failures for 1.1.1. I hadn't done it before
because they weren't edited as part of this restructuring. It will be a
big manual editorial process to sort the techniques for all the SC -
unless I write a script to do it, and then have to be really sure the
script doesn't break something else. I wasn't planning to tackle that as
part of this update.
>
> The technique list paragraphs aren't indented in the Quick Ref, which
> is a little confusing. It almost makes the SItuations look like
> subcases of the lists, instead of vice versa. Is there a way to
> control that formatting?
I added an indent to paragraph elements in the QR.
>
> I tried playing around with different Quickref configurations, and I
> think things work ok. Fortunately, it isn't possible to turn off
> general techniques, so the only list that can ever be empty is the
> last one (Techniques to indicate that text alternatives are *not
> required* for Situation F). That may be a little confusing, but I
> would only expect it to be used by experts.
I think this aspect of the QR is hard to use anyways. For several years
it's been proposed to do a better version, and we've held off major
improvements to the existing one in anticipation of a new design. I keep
getting told "soon" about a new design...

Michael
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     I've committed the restructuring of Understanding SC 1.1.1:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130314/text-equiv-all
>
>     This implements the approved proposal:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=Restructuring_Understanding_1.1.1&oldid=2022
>     <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=Restructuring_Understanding_1.1.1&oldid=2022>
>
>     I'd like review of this to help me check that I did it right and
>     that it still looks as we hoped it would, now that it's in context
>     of the live draft.
>
>     One note, the lists of techniques for short text alternatives,
>     long text alternatives, etc. are not in explicit sub-sections with
>     headers. The XML format didn't allow any further levels of section
>     nesting and it would be a big change to enable that - I can if
>     it's deemed crucial. For now, the list of techniques just have a
>     paragraph serving as a header before the list. The references go
>     to that paragraph, and the list immediately follows.
>
>     You may also want to take a look at the updated Quickref that also
>     picks up this change:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20130314/
>
>     In there, it would be particularly helpful to turn on and off some
>     of the technology filters (under "Customize this Quick Reference")
>     to make sure everything stays sane.
>
>     Michael
>     -- 
>
>     Michael Cooper
>     Web Accessibility Specialist
>     World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
>     E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
>     Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
>
>

-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>