W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > August 2011

Comments from Sylvie on update policies page and Jennifers thoughts

From: Sylvie Duchateau <sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:53:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E37C918.4070207@snv.jussieu.fr>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: Jennifer Sutton <jsuttondc@gmail.com>, Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>, Andrew Arch <Andrew.Arch@finance.gov.au>, Helle_BjarnÝ <jor@servicestyrelsen.dk>, wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Hello all,
While visiting the old page and the update proposal I have some comments 
and replies to Jennifer, and Shawn and Liam.
Liam Writes:
"I think that the intro would be a great place to mention the 
harmonization doc, before the reader gets overwhelmed in the detail. 
Also suggest consider
sticking the disclaimer at the end, with a link to it from the intro, to 
keep the opening tone positive ('You will find what you're looking for 
here, or
at least a very good starting point' rather than negative 'You will not 
find what you're looking for here. Go away.')? At least it should live 
after the
intro, and I suggest also that the intro should live before the status 
and updates..."
SD: I agree with this suggestion.
After pagec ontents, there is a part called "countries on this page" 
followed by country names: au, uk, ca, ch. In  my opinion these links 
are not very clear. They were already on the old page and I found them 
unclear at the time I had reviewed this page.
Changing page title as suggested by Jennifer is really helpful. Thank 
you Shawn for having modified that!
Jennifer writes:
>> "2.  I agree that the introduction needs to be shortened, and I'll 
>> take a stab at it as soon as I can.
> SLH: I think we need to rethink the entire "front matter". I've added 
> it to the Open Issues in the changelog.
SD: I agree with this too!
> Jennifer:
>> "Is the intro the right place to mention the harmonization document? "
> SLH: I think so. I've added it to the draft.
SD: I agree!
Regarding the introduction, I find  its first sentence complicated to 
understand because it is very long and needs being read several times to 
be understood.
SD: Suggestion to paragraph beginning with "absence of links to 
  policies in a given country ": this paragraph suggests to notify 
editors about information that should be on the page as explained in the 
status section above. What about linkin through an anchor to this status 

> Jennifer writes: 
4.  Is it necessary to indicate where a document was formerly located? 
I'm persuadable, but I find the link references that are not "live" slow 
my skimming and comprehension.
>> Might it be easier to maintain if the current page were simply 
>> archived and linked to at the bottom?
>> W3C might care about what was updated and what used to be where, but 
>> I'm not sure the updates/changes need to be flagged for the general 
>> reader.
>> In addition, I'm afraid that this kind of flagging may highlight the 
>> maintenance issues.
>> If I'm coming to this page, I'm going to look for my country, or 
>> another country that interests me, and find the links for that as 
>> quickly as I can. I'm envisioning someone who may come to this page 
>> from the "Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Web Sites" 
>> page. If I were that person, I'd want the two or three links I should 
>> be citing in my email.
>> I worry about overwhelming people with two many choices.
> SLH: I added to the Open Issues in the Changelog for discussion. If I 
> remember correctly from before, we thought having the old like might 
> help someone locate the document if they really want to -- and maybe 
> nag the owner to put up a redirect.
SD: I agree with Jennifers concerns.  Legislation is already complex 
enough so it would be helpful to keep this page as simple as possible.
> 5. Should there be a new category that relates to Global efforts such 
> as the UN Convention? Or ITU may have something(s)?
> SLH: I added it to the Open Issues in the Changelog to see how it 
> plays out. Mostly I think this will be determined by if there is 
> global information that we want to include.
SD: I think the UN conventions should be mentionned somewhere as over 
100 countries have ratified it.
> Jennifer:
>> 6. Is it worth considering either eliminating, or lessening, the 
>> "Additional Information" sections?
>> Or maybe, when soliciting updates, we indicate that people only may 
>> include three links at the VERY most?
>> I'm thinking about future maintenance and too many choices.
> SLH: I added it to the Open Issues in the Changelog for discussion. 
> One issue is that in some countries there is very little formal 
> legislation and the additional information is vital.
SD: I agree with Jennifers concerns. May be a solution would be to keep 
the part "additional information" for countries that have little formal 
legislation and for which additional information is vital.

> Jennifer:
>> 7. When possible, if there are only certain sections in a document, 
>> I'd like to try to "deep link" right to them, using a nested list. I 
>> know this runs contrary to my generally wanting to simplify, but I 
>> find it hard to see textual citations and then have to shift among 
>> pages as I try to locate them in the legal document. I suspect I'm 
>> not alone.
>> But of course, people probably often don't construct the documents to 
>> make deep-linking easy.
> SLH: I added it to the Open Issues in the Changelog for discussion. 
> Mostly I think we'll want to look at this on a case-by-case basis.
SD: I agree with Jennifers concern and Shawn's proposal to handle it in 
a case by case basis.
I had a look at the "France" section and information is really out of 
date. I will try to compile some newer information.
That's all for my comments. Hearing from you later on the call.
Best regards
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 09:48:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:22 UTC