Re: Comments on edit, retire, etc. -- Re: WAI Website IA Draft for Review

I don’t know if I am supposed to comment, but here are a few minor 
thoughts:

1. I think archiving is OK for most of the things that Charlotte and 
James pointed out. It would not go away, but it would be clear that we 
don’t actively work on it. That is OK. (Archiving = Leave as it is, 
not link to it from the navigation or any existing resource, unless 
qualified as “here is some additional archived content” where it’s 
really, really needed.)

2. I think the 221 – WAI Projects – is necessary for transparency. 
It might also be helpful to generate new projects (= funding). I think 
however that we might be able to have one page or a section in about WAI 
that talks about those projects and why they have been successes. Then 
we could link to the archive (especially for all the real old projects).

3. I think it is entirely okay to strip everything from the new page 
that has a 1.0 in it. The content can still be found in the archives, 
and we can have a sidebar box on the new site that says “Still using 
WCAG 1.0 and want to switch? See this archived content over here!”

   This approach underlines that WCAG 2.x is now the current version and 
that they are behind. I think we’d get some (minor learning effect, 
too).

Apart from the points above, I leave it to others; I think every single 
page we don’t have will make it easier for us to keep the page updated 
and useful for our users.

Eric

On 8 Jul 2017, at 19:55, Shawn Henry wrote:

> Updated spreadsheet attached, includes some input from Shadi (SAZ).
>
> *Note*: I only added comments in one column. I did not change any of 
> the others -- so there are some that are marked archive and obsolete, 
> that should not be.
>
> ~Shawn
>
> On 7/5/2017 4:21 PM, Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've done a first round of comments -- not comprehensive, but I think 
>> important for Charlotte, James, Sharron, Brent, and all to have for 
>> planning next steps.
>>
>> In the attached file, my comments are in the Comments column preceded 
>> with SLH:
>>
>> Best,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>> On 7/1/2017 1:07 AM, Green, James wrote:
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>> Here is everything for y'all to review prior to bringing it to the 
>>> TF and WG.  Charlotte and I met whenever we could over the last few 
>>> weeks so we are mostly in agreement, but it has evolved since she's 
>>> seen it last so I expect she may have some feedback as well.
>>>
>>> I've attached PDF, XLS, and HTML versions of the new IA (the PDF has 
>>> a bit more info but you'll need to zoom in to see it).  This 
>>> captures the new IA for your review.  Every item has a number or the 
>>> word "New" in parenthesis after it.   Those numbers map to the XLS 
>>> mentioned below for traceability back to the current sitemap.  The 
>>> cross-links you'll see in the PDF are mostly there to allow us to 
>>> have 2 paths to content that different personas would seek 
>>> differently.  E.g., a Tips for Getting Started page in the newbie 
>>> section used to be the Tips for Design, Writing, Dev landing page, 
>>> but will be fleshed out more for beginners and include links to more 
>>> info that lives in other sections, where it should actually live 
>>> given our role-based mental model.  Likewise, newbies will want to 
>>> know about Mobile, and we'll then cross-link to specifics about 
>>> mobile in the role-based sections.  Last example, designers and 
>>> developers would expect to find the quick ref in their sections, so 
>>> we provide links from their sections to its real home with the TRs.
>>>
>>> WAI Sitemap to New IA.xls shows the old sitemap and my 
>>> recommendation for every single page – keep, edit, retire, 
>>> archive, rename, tersify, merge, etc…  AFAIK, this accounts for 
>>> all of Charlotte's communications with Shawn and Sharron regarding 
>>> what to do with content…This captures what must be done to get our 
>>> content ready for the new site for your review.
>>>
>>> I also mocked up a screen grab of Alicia's design to show how the 
>>> top level nav would look – just for a quick feel.
>>>
>>> Hope this email makes sense – it's been a long day…. :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> *James Green *|Sr. Director, Visa User Experience, Research & 
>>> Accessibility
>>>
>>> O512.865.2051 |M  512.650.6959 |  E jgreen@visa.com 
>>> <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>
>>>



--

Eric Eggert
Web Accessibility Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)