Re: Draft Available: Additional CTAUR edit

Thank you, Janina.

I made some editorial corrections to the new text under User Need 14, 
and corrected a markup validity error later in the document (of my 
making, not Janina's).

My changes are now included in Janina's branch.

I approve of the reorganization of the introduction and the new 
requirements 14. I propose we merge Janina's changes, which of course 
does not prevent us from further editing the added requirements.

On 22/4/24 12:10, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> I have created yet another draft of potential edits to CTAUR. The draft is available for your consideration here:
>
> http://raw.githack.com/w3c/ctaur/js2404a/
>
>
> Summary of Changes:
>
>  The former Sec 3: "User Need Definition" is now moved to the
>  Introduction as Sec 1.2.
>
> * The former Sec 1.2: "Scope and Applicability" is moved
>  * to the end of the introduction as a new Sec 1.6.
>
> * Sec 6.3 is expanded with additional requirementsthat we'll need
> * to discuss. Essentially, it suggests any user should be able to
> * request an A-I generated summary for themselves of either
> * content under development, or of any comment thread that the
> * collaboration tool knows about.
>
> Best,
> Janina
>
>
>   
>   This draft:
>
>   1.) Restores discussion of custom keyboard mappings and unique menu
>   usage to the Introduction, but doex so by moving that content to the
>   last paragraph of the relevant section. I believe this now reads
>   sensibly.
>
> 2.) Attempts an initial glossary entry for WYSIWYG, which you'll
> recall was questioned by COGA in issue 58:
>
>  https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/58
>
>  While we don't customarily refer to Wikipedia in our glossaries,
>  the Wikipedia page for WYSIWYG seems particularly helpful to me.
>
>  Best,
>  Janina
>
>
> Janina Sajka writes:
>> Dear Jason, Scott, All:
>>
>> I've been mulling Sec. 9 vs Intro and I'm not convinced 9 is enough
>> alone. I don't yet have proposed edits, though.
>>
>> Since we use the Intro to paint the picture from a user's scenario, I'm
>> now inclined to keep something about standard conventions in the intro
>> because it's just as important as notifications and the other
>> problematic features we talk about in the Intro. The more I look at this
>> the more convinced I am what we had was just positioned wrong. I'm now
>> inclined to put something at the very end of Sec. 1.2.
>>
>> As for Sec. 9 I'm not convinced it'c clear enough or strong enough. But,
>> as I say, I have no edits yet and am likely to get to this before late
>> today at the earliest.
>>
>> So, maybe we resolve this concern this time around, or maybe it's
>> another edit for the next working draft. I propose we not let this topic
>> hold us up from updating the working draft in preparation for our
>> meeting with COGA. I don't believe this particular issue is of
>> significance to them. It's more of a screen reader and/or keyboard
>> command user feature.
>>
>> Best,
>> Janina
>>
>>
>> Jason White writes:
>>> On 2/3/24 08:56, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>>> I'm thinking our preference for controls that reflect standard
>>>> expectations over arbitrarily mapped keyboard shortcuts is an important
>>>> requirement. I propose we migrate it out of the Introduction and into
>>>> our requirements, though I'm not sure yet exactly where I think it
>>>> should go.
>>>>
>>> We created section 9 and included this requirement there, but we didn't
>>> remove it from the introduction. I propose removing it from the
>>> introduction.
>>>
>>> Janina, are you satisfied with the way it's stated in section 9, or should
>>> we revise that further?
>>>
>>> I'll fix the introduction.
>> -- 
>>
>> Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
>> Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
>>
>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>>
>> Linux Foundation Fellow
>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/
>>

Received on Monday, 22 April 2024 16:49:32 UTC