- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:32:17 +0200
- 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? yes > 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 context. 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. Comments: - 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