- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:19:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- cc: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
It might be a valuable editing tool - we can easily see where there are gaps in the techniques, as we move across different technologies. (We can't tell if there are checkpoints missing, but that's another, seperate task...) If it is easy, keep with it. But if it takes much work, we can probably find another way and use your brain power at a higher level... cheers Charles On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Lisa Seeman wrote: Of course it is not an improvement visually, that was not the point, and as I said in the email I am not even trying to get it done right. Let me explain the exercise. People were concerned that have techniques guideline and other material in different documents, make it hard for some of us orientate with in the guidelines,- what belongs with what, to know when have we done every thing etc. So it was suggested that a table may help. That way you can see that you have done the checkpoints with the suggested techniques, in one shot - Maybe helpful and maybe not. Now I am not going to rewrite the guidelines, (and I am assuming that there would be a lot of sound objections if I were to try) into sound bites. This table is just a demonstration of an idea. An idea that if followed though would require agreement on a lot of points - what to do with the examples, whether to drop the "don't use ..." part etc... Personally I feel if we are to drop the "don't use ..." part, then the table becomes useless. You do not have all the information in one place. So Ignoring visual problems and stuff like that, having seen a table format, do we still think that it will aid comprehension? Or is putting so much info in one table, a lost course? That is the question. L -----Original Message----- From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@crosslink.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:44 PM To: seeman@netvision.net.il Subject: Re: my action item Lisa, Visually, this isn't an improvement, it's a disaster. When using tables like this, the text in each cell of the table should be succinct not rambling. You should be able to view *at least* one full row of the table on a "typical" screenfull. For example, in the first item in HTML prsented on the table, the text first says dont use ..." " ... then says, but if you use it ... " " ... One or the other should be prsented in the table, not both. It would be better to drop the "don't use ..." part and just present the solution. Too much information is put in each cell and the result is that the information is too chopped up to be usable. If the information is to be presented in a table, it needs to be re-written so that only the "do" is presented, not the why's and wherefor's. Anne At 10:12 AM 9/28/00 +0200, you wrote: >I put up a draft of the table format up at >http://special-needs.org/tablecheckp1.html It is a draft, just to see if we >think techniques are clearer in a table format. >Before anyone gets upset, I have not even tried edit (typos? me?) ....This >is just to see if we like the general format. >I have only done the first three checkpoints. > >Things to note: >The first checkpoint has (I think) the most techniques, so it makes it the >hardest to present in this form. >I left out examples, The table was just getting too big. We could link them >in, or just add them (as with the original techniques document). > >I do not know if this type of presentation is an improvement - >Your comments...... >L > > Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 13:21:23 UTC