+++++++1 to all of this! On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 7:36 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, (and everyone, question at the end) > > > > Just to pick up the conversation after the call, where you said: > > > > > The advantages are obvious: the reader gains an immediate understanding > of what they doing (mine) and why (Glenda's), which is often not the case > from the SC language. > > > > For consistency with the 2.0 docs I think your suggested summary > statements make sense as the first sentence if you pre-pend them with “The > intent of this Success Criterion (SC) is to…” > > > > It would be a useful “polishing” exercise once we’ve got the major > drafting & reviews done, I’d rather not interrupt that momentum by making > changes across the various branches just yet. > > > > I’ve added an issue for tracking, all going well, something to tackle next > week: > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/882 > > > > As Andrew said, there was general agreement to adding the personas to the > understanding documents (perhaps with hesitation about the number of > updates involved?). > > > > As Glenda has taken that on (with help), is everyone happy with the > location and format suggested? Taking Laura’s as example: > > > https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/text-spacing/understanding/21/text-spacing.html > > > > Something short & snappy like that seems appropriate, with a consistent > format across the docs. Perhaps with one name only, rather than two names > associated with one quote? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Alastair > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 23:57:04 UTC