W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: EOWG: Another pass at an image of the WCAG 2.0 documents

From: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:52:09 +0100
Message-ID: <489AD3D9.6040903@communis.co.uk>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Hi alla - I wasn;t there for Friday's discussions so apologies if these 
suggestions cover old ground.

Shawn Henry wrote:
> * Generally what do you think of the first image layout with WCAG in the 
> center?

Looks good to me

> * Ideas for tweaking the first image?

Keep size of each box the same (currently tehcniques and undersanding 
are bigger)

Change the link text 'Techniques titles' to 'Techniques' or 'Links to 
Techniques'. Don't present it as a link (blue, underlined) unless you 
want people to click on it fruitlessly.

I am concerned that it's not necessarily clear which parts of the 
document are text/form elements and which are images of text / images of 
form elements on other pages. I think we should have a stronger visual 
signal to differentiate them. For example, put all diagrams in a 
standard outline box (suggest #ccc single px box with 5px white internal 
border, polaroid photo style), with a dark gey background to the main 
graphical elements, and with a figure caption beneath the whole thing.

Or do a torn paper edge to them and dropshadow.

> * Overall suggestions for this page?

Make more apparent that the 'customize this Quick Reference' graphic is 
a graphic and is not a set of clickable elements. Do this by e.g. making 
it slightly smaller and setting it in a border as suggested above. Or 
possibly even just getting rid of it.

> * Specific suggestions on the wording, or on the links image?

I'm finding it hard to read at 1440x900 in a  full screen window. 
Suggest setting an em-based max-width.

Regards to all

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 10:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:42 UTC