Re: Reference card: some considerations

At 09:55 1998/09/02 +0000, Stella O'Brien wrote:
>Timescales preclude a well designed set of questions: please try and answer
>the questions and points below.
>
>1 Do you support the notion of a reference card which fits onto a business
>card?
>						Yes	No
>
yes

>	Comment:
>
>2 Would a business card format be intended for
>	a) a general audience			Yes	No
>	b) a more specific, sophisticated audience	Yes	No
general audience assessing user agents, and their designers
>	Comment:
>
>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
>
Cost shouldn't be a consideration.
>	Comment:
>
>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
>
>	Comment:
More content, less boilerplate
>
>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.?
>
>	Comment:
>
>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
>
Keep plain English (or translation).
Avoid HTML terms.(XML is here, though it can keep HTML terms)
>	Comment:
>
>
>
>Stella O'Brien, KO2
>email: smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 1998 10:48:22 UTC