Elemental quick tips

Judy et al,

Here is a strong opinion in favour of "the ... element:"

I greatly prefer the version containing the extra words. The two revised
points are much clearer than before. I happen to be reading an HTML primer
right now. When I read the new version of the Quick Tip card, I am reminded
that that noframes and map are "elements" (as opposed to "attributes,"
"values," etc.), and this reminder powerfully reinforces what I am learning.
To my ears, the extra words do not make the points sound overly technical; the
extra words enhance clarity and aid my understanding.

The inclusion of the extra words sacrifices only a little in terms of visual
aesthetics. Of course, it would be nice to have more white space at the bottom
of Side 1, but the new version is not unattractive. I don't find it clunky.
Maybe the printer can tighten the leading a little, but if it can't be done,
the polar ice caps are not going to melt.

I am willing to trust those who translate Quick Tips into other languages to
use their ingenuity to make everything fit.


> - Please look at the following proofs (these are temporary URI's only!!!
> do not bookmark!! and these are for visual inspection only -- the "alt" for
> the cards is that one set is exactly the same as the text on the current
> QuickTips page, and the other one has "Use the client-side map element and
> text for hotspots" and "Use the noframes element and meaningful titles.")
> http://www.skymedia.com/wai/
> - Any comments pro or con on the use of "the... element" on the card sets?
> William's message on Saturday notwithstanding, unless I get strong comments
> favoring "the... element" I plan to go with the simple boldface lowercase
> "map" & "noframes" only, since adding "element" etc seems to just
> exacerbate the clunkiness of the card.

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 00:35:46 UTC