Re: ARB - restructuring tables from Level to POUR

Thanks Denis, I like this one much better.  Until we get more input, 
we will use this as the template to move the data.


At 12:21 AM 5/6/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote:
>Hi all,
>I've been looking at how you've reorganized the first table Shawn 
>and I don't really like it much. I find that adding the short 
>phrases makes it much more difficult to get an overall understanding 
>of what's being presented.
>Also, adding the level of conformance in () adds even more noise. 
>This is going to get messier as we run into roles that have a lot of 
>SC applicable for them. So I played around with your proposal and 
>came up with two other options. The first one is only there to show 
>what it looks like if we had the conformance level in (), but takes 
>out the short phrases. The second proposal is what I would really 
>want to see as an official presentation.
>In a nutshell, instead of adding A, AA or AAA after every SC, we 
>just add another heading level to the table and separate the SC 
>between three columns. I find it's much easier to read and we 
>benefit form two presentation angles... the principles and then the levels.
>I agree with Sharron that people can always get the details by 
>clicking on the links.
>On 2012-05-04, at 4:22 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
> >
> > 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: 
> >>
> >> 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., 
> )
> >> * 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: 
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 13:42:45 UTC