W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: [restyle] Questionnaire wrt Redesign of the W3C Spec Templates

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:46:15 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>
CC: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, "timeless@gmail.com" <timeless@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D06157B3.14352%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Should this include wiki pages? Our (i.e. the W3C TTWG's) TTML spec
references a more dynamically updatable registry of attribute values at
[1], so to that extent the output generated from MediaWiki can be
considered publicly viewable and at least an adjunct to, if not a
normative part of, our specifications. Therefore IMHO the styling of W3C
wiki pages is somewhat relevant to this redesign work.

Assuming that wikis are not off-topic, timeless pointed out recently that
the wiki-generated output, e.g. the table at [2] can be less accessible
(and has poorer visual styling) than the table in 2.2 Milestones of [3],
especially on mobile devices. Those two tables look like they should be
representing similar information. The wiki table is generated using
standard wiki markup, but the HTML/CSS it produces a) doesn't share a
visual language with other W3C group output - heading fonts and the W3C
logo are similar, is all - and b) doesn't seem to be as universally

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/RoleRegistry

[2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/Publications

[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html

NB in this particular case [1] doesn't happen to use a table, which is why
I've made the comparison between [2] and [3] that are about our charter
and deliverables, but the principle remains.

So in conclusion, I'd advocate:

1. improving the styling of our MediaWiki-generated output to share some
of the visual language and minimum accessibility standards that our specs
and charter documentation use, though being distinct enough so that it
doesn't appear quite as normative.
2. Including charter documentation within scope of the spec templates
being redesigned.

Apologies if that looks like scope-creep for the project,


On 11/10/2014 06:07, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>We're looking into redesigning the W3C spec templates and style sheets
>to reduce boilerplate content and improve usability and readability.
>To help guide this project, we wanted to collect some information from
>all the W3C WGs!
>So please forward this to your WGs; answers are welcome from WGs as a
>whole and/or individual members, or some combination thereof, however
>your group prefers to answer. Send them to spec-prod@w3.org [public].
>   1. Give me 3-5 adjectives for how the visual design of
>      a W3C spec should "feel".
>   2. List the URLs to 3 specs that are representative of
>      your WG's output (especially wrt markup and structure
>      of the content).
>   3. Do you have any documentation of your markup conventions?
>      Please paste URLs:
>   4. What spec processing tools does your WG actively use?
>   5. What are your goals for the redesign?
>   6. Is there anything else we should know / consider?
>Note: This project is going to be a consensus-driven experiment, so
>feedback will be welcome throughout. However, it is also a spare-time
>project, so progress might be a bit slow and sporadic. :)
>More information at https://www.w3.org/wiki/SpecProd/Restyle


Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 09:46:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:20 UTC