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

Re: Components "slides" - more questions

From: Justin Thorp <justin@mycapitalweb.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:17:41 -0400
Message-Id: <6E489961-3C93-46E9-9C1C-3AE7DDDCC7C1@mycapitalweb.com>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

On Sep 13, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Shawn Henry wrote:

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

Works for me.

> 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?

Using "usually" starts to get at the problem with this part of the  
cycle.  We don't imply the problem (where things break down) in the  
"Getting Web Content" slide.  Should we be consistent?

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

Most people I know aren't familiar with the term assistive  
technologies.  The only thing they know are screen readers.  A  
definition may be a good idea.

> 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.

A link to the tools list would be helpful 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. 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
>
>


Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 11:17:57 UTC

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