RE: WSTF: Rev. Intro to Slide Set

> 	*	What are our standards for header usage? Do we need, for
> example, a header "Introduction"? This intro doc has
> "Introduction" in the title (H1), as the first H2), and in 
> the first sentence of Charmane's draft
> - overkill.

Imagine you skim the document by reading headers...

Sailesh had difficulty with the UAAG Intro page (at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/sketchpad/uaag) because he couldn't find
the document links - because they had no header.

I think we do need a header there; however, you could find better
wording (e.g. "About the Slide Show" or "Purpose" or ...).

> 	*	Is the title of the slide show "Online Overview 
> of the Web
> Accessibility Initiative" or "Overview of the Web
> Accessibility Initiative"? I would vote for the latter, as 
> it's obvious that it's online when viewed over the Web, but 
> could be offline when someone is using it for a presentation. 
> All our docs are online.

Good point. I do think we need to re-think the title for this. It really
is a presentation - albeit self-guided... ah, well, probably not worth
major change.

How about proposing your title change to the _EOWG_ list - in follow up
to the discussion from Friday's teleconference (minutes at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2004/0709#overview)

Also, Judy calls it a "slide set" but I wonder how jargony that is?
(really, slides is such an outdated term! :)

> 	*	Do we want to let people modify the slide show?

Yes. Very few people will want to present the entire slide show as it is
in its entirety. We want to make it easy for them to copy and use some
of it. Otherwise, they will have to retype and are more likely to make
errors and omissions.

> 	*	Are there instances when we want to include the 
> entire URI
> with the link name? If so, when and what format? For example,
> Overview of Web Accessibility 
> <http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/overview.html>
> (http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/Overview.html). My vote 
> would be to not include the links on the page (I don't think 
> we do this now) and consider a printer-friendly style that 
> would include the links. If we do include the URI, it should 
> not be a live link: it would then be a redundant link for a 
> screen reader, as well as sounding like gibberish in a links list.

You are correct, we usually do not write out the URI. Look at the
Requirements to see if there is any reason we would want to in this
case.

We have on the wish list an option to print pages with all the links
"spelled out" (that is, include the URI) - but that is a long way off.

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:21:14 UTC