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: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:50:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4C7FD5E6.1040402@w3.org>
To: Andrew Arch <andrew@w3.org>
CC: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Great. replies below.

>> * 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'm OK with it now that you have the links to WCAG Techniques. :-)

>> * 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.

I see that you added in a top section "This section lists some of the techniques that can help optimize websites for older people; many of these techniques are linked to their documentation, but some are noted as 'future link'."
This makes the bottom redundant. (also, I'm not keen on it being under Terminology).

How about here saying: "This section lists some of the techniques that can help optimize websites for older people. (Many of the techniques link to additional information. Those with "(future link)" will be written up with later edits to the WCAG Techniques."
or such, and then not saying more at the bottom?

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:50:58 UTC

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