W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: ref card

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:40:35 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, "Stella O'Brien" <smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk>

Thanks for getting this going.  Here are some thoughts regarding the format
& content of the reference card:

Background on quick reference card: The EOWG discussion of wanting a "quick
reference card" came out of our June 11 meeting (see minutes for June 11
linked from WAI EO home page at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO ) where we were
talking about needing reference materials that were more technical than the
html4-access and css2-access pieces
(http:/www.w3.org/WAI/References/html4-access and
http:/www.w3.org/WAI/References/css2-access ) but at the same time
reference materials that were much less technical than those pieces.  We
talked about needing something that was simple enough to just be handed out
-- a "how to get started" piece," that would include follow-up links for
additional information.

At the July 24 Peterborough meeting, we again talked about needing a
reference piece that was simple, did not try to be comprehensive, and that
provided a brief introduction to some key accessibility principles, with
pointers to where to go for more information.

Simplified guidelines:  There have also been discussions about needing a
"boiled-down," simplified, or "how-to" version of the page author
guidelines; and other discussions about just trying to make the guidelines
themselves as readable as possible.  I think that your draft is more of the
"simplified how-to" version right now rather than the quick-reference card.
 Particularly for the "simplified how-to," the content would need to be
very carefully coordinated with the page author guidelines working group.
The latest version of their working draft, though not yet posted publicly,
is at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL linked from "current draft" either in the
table or linear version.  

I think there's a strong demand for a very streamlined quick reference
card.  Format-wise it could be a half-sheet or full-sheet hand-out in hard
copy, and a short Web page in electronic format.  Content-wise it could be
something like the first few lines of each item on your mini-guideline, but
without the additional descriptive material or examples.  It needs a
paragraph up front introducing the issue, and a paragraph at the end with
pointers to additional information.

By the way a _really_ short version of Web access guidelines, though some
of the content needs tweaking, is at
http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/access.html#webaccess.  I'm assuming though
that even a quick reference card would need a little more stuffing than

EOWG could focus on a simplified how-to guideline once the page author
guidelines have stabilized more, and do that in close coordination with the
Page Author Guidelines Working Group.  

- Judy

At 02:30 PM 8/6/98 +0200, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>> 1 is there a need for different versions as suggested above?
>I'm not sure we need that for the ref card. First I'd need to
>understand how we intent to publich them, and to which audience, and
>But I'd rather not complicate our delivables set further and stick
>with one set of ref card, even if there is risk of obsolescence in the 
>printed version.
>> 2 is the suggested content appropriate? If not, what would be?
>What you wrote is very relevant to what I want to see in the first
>press/article (broad educated/technical audience): mention what needs
>to be done, but not HOW, or not in details.
>As a follow-up to this message, I'm going to post my proposal for the
>"Article in Magazine/Press" deliverable.
Judy Brewer   jbrewer@w3.org     617-258-9741
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139 USA
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 1998 14:44:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:27 UTC