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

Re: Reference card: some considerations

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:32:17 +0200
Message-Id: <199809021232.OAA00722@www47.inria.fr>
To: "Stella O'Brien" <smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk>
cc: WAI Education and Outreach <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

> 1 Do you support the notion of a reference card which fits onto a business
> card?


> 2 Would a business card format be intended for
> 	a) a general audience			Yes	No
> 	b) a more specific, sophisticated audience	Yes	No

general and sophisticated have different meaning depending on the

the audience is people writing HTML pages, whether by hand or using
tools. This is not people on the HTML working group, or people
implementing HTML browsers or HTML authoring tools, nor it is for
people just browsing the web.
> 3 If WAI EO could only afford one format for the reference card, should it be
> 	a) the business card size			Yes	No
> 	b) a longer, more 'pocket-size' card	Yes	No

Both are valid, but since I prefer the word count to be under whatever 
fit in 8pt on 2 sides of a business card, I prefer business card, not
a folded thing. If we decide that we need more words than can fit in
8pt on 2 sides, then I would be OK with a 4-side folding card.
> 4 Because of the size constraints, should a business card version
> 	a) cover the current spread of issues which more closely conforms
> to the PAGL						Yes	No
> 	b) concentrate only on 3 issues (plus introduction and 'Get more
> information' sections) 	 				Yes	No

Why 3 ? we have versions in 9pt with 5 issues.
> 5 Based on the current content of the reference cards, if the business card
> version were to address only three issues, what would they be? I assume
> that everybody would agree on 'text versions of visuals' etc. but which
> other 2 items would you include? Would the 'text versions of visuals' be
> expanded to cover visuals; applets; complex displays (charts, graphs etc.);
> icons etc.?

I don't understand why you say 3, where 5 seems fine.

> 6 The content of the reference cards is consciously written in a plain
> English style, and it avoids the use of html terms (partially because of
> the writing style; partly to avoid quick obselescence).
> 	a) should we retain the plain English?	Yes	No
> 	b) should the cards refer to html terms?	Yes	No

yes and yes.

  - IMO the writing style needs to be a minimum technical, because the 
    audience is a minimum technical and we're asking to understand
    technical things eventually. It's not for managers or users
  - HTML, in its current form or in its future XML form, is going to be with
    us for several years. 
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 1998 08:32:11 UTC

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