RE: EOWG: Agenda for 4 May 2007 Teleconference [with new Quick Ref link]

> Interim **DRAFT**: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20070516/
> - Any feedback on how to make the resource more understandable and
> usable?

Like Henny and Alan, I would suggest a different title - "WCAG 2.0 selection tool", "WCAG 2.0 customised reference"?

I also agree about removing/abbreviating the preliminary text. Do we really need a "status" on a tool? And the "Table of Contents" should appear below the form so that you can navigate to the relevant section AFTER making your technology choices.

The "Introduction" and possibly some of "Customizing this Quick Reference" could be in a page before you get to the tool itself.

It would also be nice to be able to select a view that just includes the Guidelines and Success Criteria - offer a choice to display/hide the techniques and other advisory material.

Regards, Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org on behalf of Alan Chuter
Sent: Fri 4/05/2007 9:05 PM
To: EOWG
Subject: Re: EOWG: Agenda for 4 May 2007 Teleconference [with new Quick Ref   link]
 

I agree that the title is confusing. "Quick reference" made me think of  
"quick tips", although as soon as I saw the document I realised that it  
isn't.

Perhaps customisable or dynamic would be better adjectives.

Seeing it in print, the text "select the technologies you are using" was  
confusing as the form is hidden by the style sheet, if the reader doesn't  
know how it works.

Probably it is intended that people will use it like a checklist once  
they've alreay go to know the main documents, and won't want to see all  
the banter in the Introduction each time. It might be a good idea to  
provide instructions on a seperate page, to be able to give more detail  
and avoid misunderstandings.

Saying "display only those technologies..." should really be "display only  
those Success criteria relevant to the technologies" but then it starts to  
be rather long-winded. In a separate page there would be room for more  
detail.

The first paragraph of the introduction is rather long-winded. It might be  
easier to put something like "The full document is very long. This dynamic  
page can save you having to read loads of information that isn't relative  
to the technologies in your baseline" and perhaps "focus on SC relevant to  
the technologies in your baseline".

The caveat on each SC "(for baseline technologies you checked above)"  
seems very necessary, although it isn't understandable when the document's  
printed, if I didn't print it for example, and picked it up without  
realising what that it isn't the full document.


-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant
Technosite (Fundación ONCE)
achuter@technosite.es
www.technosite.es
Tel. +34 91 121 03 35
Skype: achuter1



En Fri, 04 May 2007 12:21:29 +0200, Swan, Henny <Henny.Swan@rnib.org.uk>  
escribió:

>
>
> 1. WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference
>
> Current version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
>
> Interim **DRAFT**: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20070516/
> - Any feedback on how to make the resource more understandable and
> usable?
>
> The overall heading of the document is still confusing. It may be better
> to call it something with "planner" in or some active verb that makes
> you realise that it is a document that you can interact with and use to
> help you plan and map what guidelines and techniques you need to
> implement on your site. Something like "WCAG 2.0 implementation
> planner".
>
> I almost want it to be in a table with a column that can then be filled
> out by me for pass and fail so that I can print it off and check stuff
> off as I use it in my site.
>
> There is an awful lot of explanation and text at the start of the
> document that has to be waded through. It would be easier to read if
> this was cut down and simplified.
>
>
> Thanks, Henny
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 12:08:35 UTC