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

Re: ARB - restructuring tables from Level to POUR

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 16:01:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4FA44399.7030704@w3.org>
To: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
CC: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
  On 5/4/2012 3:22 PM, Sharron Rush wrote:
> 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
> -OR-
> 2. Include the short phrase
> My preference is #1...please comment

Hi Sharron,

How about for now leave the Analysis one with the handles/short phrase, but do the other ones without. That way you can go ahead and do the restructured tables now, with the simpler option. If we decide to add the handles, we can do that later.


> Best,
> Sharron
> 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: http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#Analysis
>> Notes:
>> * 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.
>> Questions:
>> * 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., http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown_-_Analysis )
>> * 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. :-)
>> Regards,
>> ~Shawn
>> [1] this iteration in history: http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/index.php?title=Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown&oldid=170#Analysis
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 21:01:30 UTC

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