W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: ARB - restructuring tables from Level to POUR

From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 15:22:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4fa43a7e.65183c0a.039b.ffffc20c@mx.google.com>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

My own opinion is that it is easier if it is just the list of numbers 
so people can then link in to get detail.  The table itself is not a 
reference but a map to the correct reference, in my opinion.  But we 
are happy to do the update according to group decision.  Please let 
us know what that is.  We have placed the new tables but they are 
empty and will be filled in when we know to do one of the following:

1. Just make the list of numbers with the Level designation and the link
2. Include the short phrase

My preference is #1...please comment


At 03:00 PM 5/4/2012, Shawn Henry wrote:
>  Hi all,
>Based on today's EOWG discussion, I have restructured the high-level 
>Analysis table at: 
>* I added in the "handles" (short descriptions). I think this is 
>important for those who don't have all the SC memorized. :-) I know 
>it adds to the length, but I think it's worth it to make it more 
>useful and usable for non-WCAG geeks.
>* I basically put them in numerical order; however, I grouped 
>related SC, which means 3.3.6 is after 3.3.4 since they are both 
>Error Prevention, and 3.3.5 is at the end. Maybe we want to do even 
>more to group those SC at different levels that have this 
>relationship (e.g,. the colour contrast ones)
>* I added an extra &nbsp; after the commas to separate the items -- 
>otherwise the 's were too close to the next numbers and there was a 
>proximity association issue. (oh, also, these should probably be 
>marked up as lists with CSS to make inline...)
>* Of course, feel free to change any of it.
>* When there are no SC for a principle, should we include it with 
>"none" as in this iteration[1]? or just leave out that row? One idea 
>is to leave out of these tables, since they are include in the 
>details (e.g., 
>* Preference for having the As in parenthesis (as in the 
>Understandable row in this iteration)? Or not, as in the Operable 
>row in this iteration?[1]
>(I leave it to Sharron's bench or others to do the other tables, 
>including the one at the top. :-)
>[1] this iteration in history: 
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 20:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:46 UTC