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

Re: QA Framework documents Available for Review

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:03:54 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: "Lynne Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org

At 09:53 PM 1/4/2002 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>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
> >>(<http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs).
> >
> >It's best to drop the "#docs".  You'll see "Discussion Drafts" at the top
> >of the .../WG/ page.
> >
> >-Lofton.
> >
>Calling this a 'correction' crosses a Quality line, for me.  The information
>originally given was correct.  The substitute directions offered are not.

I stand corrected.  I agree, that the directions were "correct".  But see 

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

My comment was somewhat empirical -- one browser (IE 5.5) takes me to the 
top of the page, the other (NN 4.73) takes me to the bottom (thereby 
entirely missing the #docs-anchored section).

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

That wasn't the motivation for the comment, saving keystrokes.  I know 
there is a view point that one should not cater to the foibles of browsers, 
but ... a lot of people use NN4.x.

>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.

Goal was -- to the start of the page.

Point is well taken, that this page should be made more consistent.  You 
should be aware that we (QA) are just getting these pages set up, and there 
is a team of W3C staff and WG members who are working on the whole set of 
QA, WG, and IG pages to make them better.  I'm sure that they would love to 
have more feedback about the pages' layout, style, organization, and content.

>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?

Yes, as you didn't mention the ncorrect and very misleading 
bottom-of-the-page problem, you probably didn't try it with NN (4.73, Win98).


p.s.  Btw, from previous experiences, I believe that it is the weak styling 
support of 4.x which is at the root of the bad behavior.  In fact, NN 4.73 
on Win98 also fails to executed the top line of links on the page.
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 12:06:43 UTC

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