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

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:43:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reGd1rrQa7CDbiUpysZkvv05so2xFC8y=LN7cq_BpW08eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "team-rdf-chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:07 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> 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".

formal, tight, consistent

>   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:

Not as such.

>   4. What spec processing tools does your WG actively use?


>   5. What are your goals for the redesign?

I would very much like to ensure that the documents work well in eReader
environments AND in printed form.  If there were also some style guide for
document authors to help ensure that document content / structure is more
consistent that would be nice.  For example, the Abstract should tell
someone who has no idea what the spec is about enough that they can decide
if it is what they are looking for.  Within sections the top level (2. My
Section) should contain high level information about the contents of that
section; a secondary level (2.1. My Sub-Section) should contain more
detail, etc.  This dovetails with the David Singer request that we make
sections collapsible.

>   6. Is there anything else we should know / consider?

I don't love the idea of Living Standards.  Stability is essential for many
technologies and consumers thereof.  If we are moving toward a more dynamic
spec environment, then we need to have strong guidelines for how those
dynamic specs remain stable for the consumers.

It is essential that we be able to interconnect our various specifications
in a consistent manner. Not just at the bibliographic level (normative and
non-normative references) but also at the section / definition level.

If possible, having a stylesheet that would work better on mobile devices
is a good stretch goal.

Documents MUST be view-able electronically whilst off-line (e.g., on a
tablet while on a plane).

Documents, in particular snapshot / milestone versions of documents, must
be usable without any scripting support at all.  In other words, the WD /
CR / PR / REC version of a spec, in its default state, must have all of its
information displayed and must not require any sort of scripting to
navigate the document or expose some its critical information.

> 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
> Thanks~
> ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 16:43:53 UTC

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