- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:03:17 +0100
- To: Michael Stenitzer <stenitzer@wienfluss.net>
- CC: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Hi Michael, Thank you for working on this! I personally prefer v1. We could also reuse the same icons (cross and tick) within the annotated pages to help associate the symbol with the content. Best, Shadi Michael Stenitzer wrote: > > hi all, > > i've prepared more wireframe variations, but i'm still not fully > satisfied with the results. > > > http://www.wienfluss.net/BAD/20081123_BADv1.png > http://www.wienfluss.net/BAD/20081123_BADv2.png > http://www.wienfluss.net/BAD/20081123_BADv3.png > http://www.wienfluss.net/BAD/20081123_BADv4.png > > changes and notes: > * moved top navigation to the top right page corner (was actually a > mistake) > * increased whitespace in header > * introduced icons for accessible and inaccessible versions. active tab > selections will have colored icons in green / red. > * fixed typo in the tabs > * in v1 and v2 the active tab is higher than the others. > * in v3 and v4 the tabs are split (im not convinced if the metaphor is > clear in this case) > * in v3 and v4 i have a bad(TM) feeling about the icon just in the first > tab of each pair, but think that it would be equally wrong with the > icon in each tab. > * in v3 we have to extend the links to either of the annotated pages > with (hidden) information about the (in)accessibility of the > respective page. > * v2 is easier to implement as the tabs are not right and left aligned > > > any thoughts? > > /michael > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 21:04:00 UTC