- From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:18:37 -0500
- To: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>,<w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Cc: Jason Hester <jason@knowbility.org>,Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>,
I think the individual tables for each SC will also be helpful, good idea. I do have a bit of concern that we may be re-creating the very information overload that we are trying to mediate. Say my role is Front End developer, by the time I get to the third page of applicable SC detail in the wiki, will I not feel just as overwhelmed as I do trying to navigate the Guidelines and Techniques pages? At 11:25 AM 5/7/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote: >Hi again. > >I've updated the main page with the new table format. I've also >added that table we talked about with an overview of all relevant >roles per SC: ><http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#General_Overview>. > >I'm thinking of adding a new set of pages through that tavle, for >each SC, that could look something like this: ><http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Success_Criteria_1.1.1_level_A>. > >The idea would be to be able to come to this page to see how a >specific SC applies to a specific role and how the interpretation of >the SC changes form one role to another. Obviously, when one thinks >of 1.1.1, the perspective is different whether the stakeholder is a >developer, an seo specialist or a content strategist... > >I still have to figure out how these pages would work with the >specific role pages, where all applicable SC are listed down by >principles (the ones Jason would be working on if I'm following >correctly), such as: ><http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown_-_Analysis>. > >Thoughts? > >/Denis > > > >On 2012-05-07, at 11:59 AM, Sharron Rush wrote: > > > Sure, whatever works best for you. I have included Jason so he > knows to step back for now and wait for your instruction about what's next. > > > > Shawn, Jason will be writing to you in a separate email about his > troubles with creating an account. For now he is signed on a s me > inorder to be able to do the edits. > > > > Best, > > Sharron > > > > > > > > At 09:35 AM 5/7/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote: > >> Sharron, > >> > >> If you don't mind, let me do some editing on the main page > before you get too far. > >> > >> It turns out that I have a version almost ready with all tables > presented this way (i guess i was bored last night, I made it just > to see what it would look like). > >> > >> I'm also about to add in a huge table with all roles put side by > side. It should be ready within an hour or so. > >> > >> If you have people available to work on ARB at the moment, the > best thing would be to work on the specific role pages for now. > Once I make my update, then we could go over it all and see if > we're comfortable with this. > >> > >> Sounds good? > >> > >> /Denis > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012-05-07, at 9:42 AM, Sharron Rush wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks Denis, I like this one much better. Until we get more > input, we will use this as the template to move the data. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > Sharron > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> >> > >> >> > <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#ar> > >> >> > >> >> I agree with Sharron that people can always get the details > by clicking on the links. > >> >> > >> >> /Denis > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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: > 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 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 Monday, 7 May 2012 17:19:13 UTC