RE: Components "slides" - more questions

Please see my comments after each point

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

NL. I prefer Components vs. Ingredients as Component seems to mean a
piece that makes up a whole or an element of a system while Ingredients
is used mostly in recipes and chemistry and it seems that it does not
have the same connotation of being a part of a whole system though they
are close in meaning. May I suggest to add the word "integral"
components.  

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.

NL. I suggest to use creating as it is more common.

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?

NL. It is better to leave "usually" out.  It will promote usage of
evaluation tools.

8. In Assistive Technologies Getting Web Content, is it useful to also
include the "official" definition?  

NL. I think it would certainly be very useful to have definition.

9. In Evaluation Tools in Making Web Content, should we add a note with
links to Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
<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.

NL. Suggest to have only one link to this page
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools> 

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.  

11. Not necessary at all, from my point of view.

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?

NL: Suggest to leave it as is to make it simple.

All for now.
~Shawn 


Components work better for me

Ingredients for Web Accessibility: A Walk-Through
[cooking image?]
[Much of the focus of Web accessibility has been on the responsibilities
of Web content developers. This view misses the crucial interdependence
of other "ingredients" of Web development and interaction. @@why
important]

The following pages introduce how the different ingredients each have a
vital role in Web accessibility, and how the WAI accessibility
guidelines cover the different ingredients.

 


Natasha Lipkina
HP.com Customer Experience 
Accessibility/Compliance
650-236-5409

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Shawn Henry
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:14 PM
To: EOWG (E-mail); judy Brewer
Subject: Components "slides" - more questions


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)

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

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.

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?

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
<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.

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.
~Shawn 


-------- 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

Note:
- 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... 

Best,
~ Shawn