Re: HTML view of metadata: please comment

Hi Shadi,

At 10:35 16/10/2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>Hi Christophe,
>(...) As usual, I have a lot of comments ;) -I've made many of the 
>changes directly and attached the new file. Here is what I did for 
>your consideration:

Thanks for the comments. I have implemented almost all of the changes 
in the XSLT.

I have uploaded four new examples to the following locations:
These are actually the four test samples without a corresponding 
technique or failure (see Drew's action item).

>#1. Removed *Sample* from the <h1> and added the status label (in 
>this case "unconfirmed") so that no one misses it.


>#2. Added an "Applies To" entry to the metadata table, and put the 
>link to the WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion directly in there (I think 
>this data can be easily decoded from the ID).

Done. The SC number can be coded from the ID because of our current 
naming convention; the URL comes from the rulesets.xml file. If we 
change the naming convention, we'll need to get this informaiton in a 
different way.

>#3. Added a "Review History" entry to the metadata table, from which 
>the link to the status link should start -the "Status" entry now 
>also contains the expanded text of the status level (for more 
>clarity), and a link back to the Review Process (for transparency).

I inserted a link to the Test Sample Status List. Once we've moved to 
a test case management system, we'll be able to provide a more 
specific pointer, I hope.

>#4. Changed "Date" to "Last Updated" but still think it is ambiguous 
>(is it the last updated date of this HTML view or of the test sample?).

It's the date when the metadata file was last changed. (At least you 
know you're not looking at a cobweb page.)

>#5. Changed "Sample Files" section to "Test Files", and put the link 
>to the XML matadata in there too -these are the files that are 
>needed to execute the test automatically, and now all in one place.

The link to the XML file works for the current test suite, but I 
don't know how to make it work in a more general way (i.e. if we 
create test suites for other technologies later).

>#6. Added an "Expected Results" section beneath the "Test Case", and 
>also put here the link to the technique/failure. See my question too.


To get the technique/failure title, we would need the stable XML of 
the 17 May 2007 Techniques document (and its predecessor). I'm not 
sure I can parse the HTML version (sent with MIME type text/html) as 
XML. Regardless which version I would use, it's a heavy additional 
file to process for every request of the HTML view. In addition, I 
would need to adapt it when the next version is published, because 
WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures is going to be split into different 
documents: one per technology (if my memory is correct).

>#7. The section "Technologies and Features" needs to be easier to 
>read. For example, the "Note:"-prefix of the first sentence is not 
>necessary, it is actually a very helpful sentence. In fact, consider 
>expanding this explanation as not many people will know what is mean 
>by "Technologies and Features". The rest of the contents in this 
>section are on-liners and it is not easy to understand the 
>relationship between them. Is it a hierarchy? Consider using lists, 
>tables, or other structures to better highlight how these different 
>bits of information relate.

I have removed the "Note:"-prefix, but I still need to work on the 
presentation of the information.

Some other things also need to be done, like the other EARL pointers 
(I currently only render the line and column numbers) and the 
HTTP-in-RDF stuff (not yet used in our test samples, I believe).
The creation of links to success criteria need to become more robust also.

>Hope this helps!

It certainly has!

>   Shadi
>Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>>I have been working on XSLT that generates an HTML view of our 
>>metadata. In the HMTL file, you can find the output for one of our 
>>test samples. The XSLT still needs some more work, but I would like 
>>to get your feedback on the current presentation before I continue.
>>We will also discuss this in tomorrow's teleconference.
>>Best regards,
>Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
>Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)  |
>Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), |
>WAI-TIES Project,       |
>Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, |
>2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
>Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
tel: +32 16 32 85 51 


Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 15:58:45 UTC