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 
section?

> 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.
Jennifer:
> 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
Sylvie
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 09:48:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 August 2011 09:48:05 GMT