Re: Background information on page titles for how pwd use the Web

Hi Sylvie,

In short: all titles are up for discussion at this stage.

Some more detailed responses inline:


On 15.10.2010 11:28, Sylvie Duchateau wrote:
> Hello Shawn and all,
> Concerning page titles, I notice that scenarios of web user have been
> changed to: stories of web users.

Some people felt that "stories" is more interesting and drawing.


> I don't know if the title has been validated, but in the link from
> introduction to this page, the title is still: next page scenarios of
> Web users while the page title is: stories of web users.

This is a bug and I've fixed it. Now all pages refer to "stories of web 
users" consistently.

Note that the introduction on that page still uses "scenarios". This is 
intentional, so that both words are used interchangeably. However, this 
is also up for discussion.


> Could give some more background during the conference about which titles
> are definitive and which are not?

At the moment none are definitive and your suggestions are welcome.


> Why some have been changed and why other must be discussed?

All of them are for discussion. Some have been changed according to 
recent discussions but it is still not final in my opinion.


> As far as the page "understanding Web users" is concerned, I think the
> old title was clearer as it talked about barriers. Understanding web
> users does not contain the idea that if a web site is not accessible
> some users may experience barriers or difficulties to access and
> interact with the page.

The issue is that the page talks more than about the barriers alone. I 
think it is more about "user needs" but some people did not like that 
approach because it unintentionally portraits the user as needy.


> The same is for web browsing methods or understanding web brosing.
> If you keep "understanding web browsing" it may get readers confused
> with the "understanding WCAG documents"?

I agree that the title needs to be tweaked. The main issue was that "web 
browsing methods" sounds rather dry.

However, I'm not sure if the resemblance of these page titles with 
"Understanding WCAG 2.0" title is a good or bad thing.


> For accessibility requirements or ensuring accessibility, I don't know
> which would be better, I have no idea about it.

I'm coming the conclusion it could be "Accessibility Principles" but 
that is something we should discuss today.


Best,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 11:54:27 UTC