RE: [date corrected] review revised format on working group home pages

...Please review the format (headings) at
www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/design-sum#wg and reply to this list:

__ NOT APPROVE, because of the following objections):

The headings are almost there and my objections are minor, but would like to
have them addressed before approving:

1. I think "Announcements & Meetings" should be split into two <h2> level
headings. Announcements and meetings are both important enough to be on a
higher level, and I think it would make the content clearer. It would also
avoid the grammatically incorrect use of the ampersand.

2. If we have a possible "Related Pages" <h2>, then shouldn't the possible
"Page Contents" also be an <h2>?

3. The title of the working group is the only <h1>. Why? Why isn't it just a
title (with an appropriate CSS class for the title)? I understand headers to
be divisions in the content, not the title of the content. That's what
headers/headers/subheads are in newspapers. Is it done differently on the
Web? 

4. I'm not sure what the rush is to have such a short time to
approve/disapprove. Depending on what other WSTF member comment, maybe it
would be best to discuss the working group pages at our next WTSF meeting
rather than being in such a hurry. I think we could discuss tweaks such as
link text - ex. "Minutes from previous meetings are available" could be just
"Minutes from previous meetings" or "Previous meeting minutes".

Beyond objections: I like the "Additional Information" header and that it is
the last header. This provides flexibility for each of the WGs while still
having consistency throughout the WG pages. 

Regards,
Blossom
_____________________________________
Blossom Michaeloff
Web Research and Design
Wells Fargo
415.222.3045
michaeka@wellsfargo.com

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 21:35:38 UTC