W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Developing Websites for Older People (batch 1 of 3 or so)

From: Andrew Arch <andrew@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:56:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4C7FBB12.7030904@w3.org>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shawn,

Shawn Henry wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> I really like how the document has come together! Overall, I think this 
> is the right amount of detail and very good organization.

Thanks :)

> Comments that apply throughout:
> * Most of the techniques are either linked or have "(future link)". What 
> about the ones that aren't, such as the first ones technique listed 
> under bit the Text size and Text style and presentation sections? Are 
> they from WCAG Techniques? (offline on flight now and cant check) If so, 
> why are they not linked or indicated as a future link? If *not*, where 
> did they come from? Is including them if they're not in WCAG saying that 
> WCAG techniques doesn't cover older users needs sufficiently? Should 
> they be submitted for *this* Techniques update?

These were amalgamations of existing or future-link techniques that I 
combined as they were similar or closely related. I've inserted short 
links for now (or it may just be clearer to have additional bullets).

> * I think we need to consider a little more explanation for people who 
> are not familiar with WCAG 2 -- at least about the "(future link)" 
> issue. (note that an EO reviewer asked about it) possibly this is a note 
> at the bottom of the document (linked to from the top of course)? Use 
> case: someone really wants to read & understand this doc, but does not 
> take the time to read up on WCAG first...

Yep - after reading the comments you mention I agree. I've added a 
Terminology section back in at the bottom and linked from within "How 
WCAG 2.0 Applies to Older People". I've currently left this Terminology 
section as always visible. I'm reluctant to link from all occurences of 
'future link' due to the "noise" level, but this could be done if folk 
consider it desirable.

> * how about "More techniques are listed in "How to Meet WCAG 2.0" under 
> 0.0.0 - Handle."
> -> "More techniques are listed under 0.0.0 - Handle in in "How to Meet 
> WCAG 2.0"." so the links come earlier in the sentence (and since it's 
> repeated so much, don't need to have the doc name front loaded.

done - good suggestion

> * consistency. In some places you have:
> 0.0.0 - Handle (A) says "blaa blaa blaa"
> and in other places:
> 0.0.0 - Handle (A) requires "blaa blaa blaa"
> I prefer "says".


> * formatting. Why have a dash between the number and the handle? versus: 
> 0.0.0 Handle (A)

This was an EO decision at some stage to separate the number from the 
handle as is done in the quickref (e.g. Sufficient Techniques for 1.1.1 
- Non-text Content)

> * formatting. Why have a WCAG quotes <em>phasized?

personal style - removed to 'eat my own dog food'

> * lower case Review in headings "Literature Review references".


> Second batch of comments coming later...

Look forward to them.  Andrew

> ~Shawn
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:21 UTC