W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: QA questions about the modularized UAAG

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:59:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3AFB011B.856CE14E@w3.org>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
"gregory j. rosmaita" wrote:
> 
> aloha!
> 
> while overall, i think ian did an excellent job modularizing UAAG, i do have
> a few preliminary Quality Assurance (QA) type questions about the
> modularized UAAG:
> 
> 1. why isn't the Navigation bar that appears at the top of cover.html not
> replicated on each constituent document? 

I don't think that there should be access to the summary/checklist
from every constituent page. There is a link to the contents from
every constituent page.

> why is there not a navigation bar
> at the bottom of each page?

Yes, that will be added.
 
> 2. why are the filenames for UAAG and UAAG-TECHS identical?  if one attempts
> to unarchive the hypertext version of the modularized document into a single
> directory (such as C:\HTML\W3C\WAI\UA), one is forced to change the
> filenames in any case, so as to avoid (a) overwriting files with identical
> names and (b) wasting hard drive space through the
> replication of the contents of the sub-directories contained in the
> archives, which includes duplicate copies of all of the images used in the
> guidelines...  of course, if one changes the names of the files contained in
> the UAAG-TECHS archive, the links from UAAG to UAAG-TECHS all break...
> 
> would it not, therefore, be better to distinguish between UAAG and
> UAAG-TECHS rather than provide users with 2 archives containing identically
> named files with distinct content?
> 
> UAAG filename: cover.html
> UAAG-TECHS filename: techs-cover.html (or cover-techs.html)
> 
> UAAG filename: guidelines.html
> UAAG-TECHS filename: techs-guidelines.html (or guidelines-techs.html)
> 
> etc.

My answer is: you shouldn't unarchive in the same place. Would
you choose to put the HTML 4 spec in the same place as UAAG 1.0?
Probably not as there may be name conflicts. 

These are two separate resources, and assuming that the names
of files are necessarily different and always will be is a 
dangerous assumption. I do not want to encourage that assumption
by using a naming mechanism that allows people to unload
all of them in the same directory.

In short: I think it's harmful to make the assumption that
the documents can co-exist in the same directory.
 
> 3. i couldn't find a listing of ACCESSKEYs for each component of the
> modularized UAAG -- shouldn't the "Previous" "Next" and "Contents" have
> ACCESSKEYs associated with them?

Yes, good idea.

Thanks Gregory!

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 16:59:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:50 GMT