W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Components "slides" - more questions

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:43:38 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>

At 05:14 PM 9/13/2006, Shawn Henry wrote:
At 05:14 PM 9/13/2006, you wrote:

>Dear EOWG Participants:
>Below are questions I had when working on the latest revision of the 
>Self-Study "Slides" for Components of Web Accessibility at:
>         http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all-extended.htm
>Feel free to share your ideas in e-mail; we may or may not discuss 
>some of these during the teleconference.
>(numbering continued from below)

It is important to have alt text available, particularly on the image 
where you describe it: presumably in due time.

>5. How does "Ingredients" work (instead of Components)?

Aren't these just "tools"  We're not baking a cake!

>6. The 4th slide and related slides have "Making Web Content". Is 
>"Creating Web Content" better than "Making"? Note the parallel is 
>"Getting Web Content" and we want this to use very simple, easy to 
>understand language.

I prefer creating.

>7. What about "usually" in: "Web content developers usually use 
>authoring tools and evaluation tools to create Web content."? The 
>sentence is simpler without it; however it's not true that all "Web 
>content developers use... evaluation tools..." OK to leave "usually" 
>out anyway?

Wish I had an authoring tool that does what they purportedly do. Thank goodness
for tidy, and the variety of inaccessibility analysis tools.

>8. In Assistive Technologies Getting Web Content, is it useful to 
>also include the "official" definition?
>9. In Evaluation Tools in Making Web Content, should we add a note 
>with links to Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools

Yes -- and somewhere tidy should be mentioned.

><http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html> and Web 
>Accessibility Evaluation Tools List Search 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools>? While it would be useful, we don't 
>want to clutter this with too many links to other documents.
>10. In The Powerful Impact of High Quality Ingredients, shall we 
>include "Once user agents and assistive technologies support it, 
>users will learn how to use the feature", or not include it in order 
>to simplify the slide since that's not a key point we want to make.

Yes; shouldn't we confess to inadequacy of current authoring tools.

>11. In For More Information, the last bullet, should we list any 
>resources? If so, which ones? Perhaps How WAI Develops Accessibility 
>Guidelines through the W3C Process: Milestones and Opportunities to 
>Contribute? Should we list a range to show breadth? Or list none to 
>keep it simple?
>All for now.
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: EOWG: Reading and Questions this week before 15 September 
>2006 Teleconference
>Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:42:05 +0000
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:41:57 -0500
>From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
>To: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>Dear EOWG Participants:
>Please review the following this week and send comments to the EOWG 
>e-mailing list before the teleconference.
>Self-Study "Slides" for Components of Web Accessibility
>* Version A Rough Draft:
>         http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all-extended.htm
>Note that Version A:
>- Includes alt text examples
>- Has more coverage of the poor & good accessibility support, on 2 slides
>- Puts the detailed descriptions on their own (6) slides
>* Version B Rough Draft:
>         http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all.htm
>Note that Version B:
>- Is very simple, without the alt text example
>- Has less coverage of the poor & good accessibility support, on 1 slide
>- Has only a few "slides" with "builds"
>* Changelog and Requirements:
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-components-self
>- These are rough drafts. I want to settle on the approach before 
>refining the text and details.
>- Images are also rough. I'll update them based on the approach we 
>decide to take.
>For review and comment:
>1. Does the alt example help understand the concepts?  Or does it 
>add unnecessary complication?
>2. Should the detailed descriptions be grouped on the 2 slides (with 
>builds) as in Version A, or separated on 6 slides, as in Version B?
>3. How should the poor & good accessibility support be covered?
>4. I suggest not calling these "slides" since they are intended for 
>self-study and not presentation. How about calling them a:
>a. Step-Through Overview
>b. Walk-Through
>c. ? other ideas...
>~ Shawn
Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 02:44:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:39 UTC