W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2002

Re: QA Framework documents Available for Review

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:53:59 -0500
Message-Id: <200201050254.VAA3451532@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Lynne Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org
At 08:37 PM 2002-01-04 , Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Slight address correction...
>At 02:44 PM 1/4/2002 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>>[...]Discussion drafts of the WG's Framework documents, Introduction and 
>>Process &Operational Guidelines are available for review 
>It's best to drop the "#docs".  You'll see "Discussion Drafts" at the top 
>of the .../WG/ page.

Calling this a 'correction' crosses a Quality line, for me.  The information
originally given was correct.  The substitute directions offered are not.  

Unfortunately for the 'correction,' the associated improvement is also

True, it is possible to save keystrokes by dropping the #docs fragment.  The
improvement involved in dropping that is debatable, however.

Going to the top of the page is better for establishing context for the visual

Going straight to the topic in question is better for the screen reader user,
saving time-consuming and disorientation-risking waste motion.  

On the other hand, at the top of the page one hears simply "Drafts" and at the
head of the relevant section of the page one hears "WG discussion drafts." 
Neither place is the label "Discussion Drafts" so I'm not entirely sure where
the 'correction' is trying to send me.

Now, I do see, but the "WG discussion drafts" section is off-screen when I
the page without the aid of the #docs extension.  So I don't see "Discussion
Drafts" at the top of the page.  And not everyone sees when they get to the
page.  So, directions that remain correct under alternative delivery contexts
are good, and machinable directions as in #docs are better.  

Maybe there's an aspect of 'better' to dropping the #docs fragment that I
didn't understand?

Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 21:54:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC