- From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:10:17 +0100
- To: "'List (WAI-AUWG)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Happy New Year everyone! Here is the location of the sandbox I set up: http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/overview.html Keep http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/ in mind as a backup in case some of the links within the document fail. Uh, I had interesting experiences (read "nightmare") setting this up and pretty much started over. As I write this mail, there are very likely still some links that are messed up, and I have not had time yet to follow up and see if I have included all items from past discussions that have been agreed upon. If any, the material will match the current draft from October that is online. These addresses are correct at least. I am reconstructing as fast as I can! I thought other people's docs should be handy so... Libby's doc is at http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/tier2-fromLiddy/. Tim's discussion of Guideline 1 and ISO16071 and IBM is at http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/atag20techs/Guideline1-ISO16071-etc/ Remember there are 2 proposals from Tim. I was intending to incorporate them but got behind with my technical problems, and then figured we should/could just as well discuss the matters first anyway. Some comments on my tasks and thoughts about everything: I was looking at the overall structure and navigation and usability of the information itself in the ATAG-TECHs document. I wasn't quite sure of how to indicate what I had done, since some of my ideas were not exactly comments. I, like Liddy, used span tags with the class that makes them bold and red. I strongly advocate the use of double at-signs as we have been using - they are easy to find. I also suggest as I have done for my own comments, that we put initials at the beginning of the comments. I have something like @@KM: what about Wombat?@@ I thought about dates too, because I don't know how long some comments have been floating about without any agreement or decision being made. The initials tell you who made the comment in case there was a need for further explanation and discussion. Anyway, what I found hard to illustrate was the revamping I did of the overview (the first page of TECHS). For example: * I moved the TOC just after the Abstract. Provides orientation ASAP! * I removed the 8 examples of authoring tools because they are in the glossary. I felt they were a bit cumbersome on this page. The 2 notes at the bottom of the page were moved up to the Introduction because it seemed the kind of "what you should know before reading" type info. I made a link here to the Examples in the Glossary. * The status needed cleaning up - there were several duplicate paragraphs. * I changed "Techniques for Checkpoint n.n" to "Checkpoint n.n" - this was one example of a sense of unnecessary bulk that could be trimmed. It bothered me visually and I could imagine a screen reader driving someone crazy repeating the same phrase again and again! * I would really like to remove the Glossary text from the ATAG 2.0 guidelines themselves, but want approval first and the TECHs had first priority anyway. The setup would be just as with the overview doc (the first page of TECHS) - you get a link to Glossary and that is that. One place to maintain, instead of 2. I will carry out more of this type of trimming and rearranging throughout the document - all with the aim of improving the reading and understanding. I also want to do some final proofreading/editing once everyone's work is in. I would be happy to be one of the final proofreading/editing/get-it-on-the-web people! ;-) I am not sure how to deal with the actual updating to W3.org of any material we complete. I assume that Matt and/or Jan have advice and can tell me what I should do with the files? That kind of discussion is perhaps more technical than necessary for this listserv so we can discuss it between the 3 of us? Talk to you all later tonight! regards, Karen Mardahl
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 14:10:25 UTC