Re: Document structure

Paul,

         I am very appreciative of what you are doing .... the new 
structure and linking makes it significantly easier to understand the 
document .... With the line around each guideline, so that when reading, 
you don't melt into another guideline without knowing it ...  Great piece 
of visual presentation .... and organization

                                         Anne

At 02:16 PM 7/31/01 -0600, Paul Bohman wrote:
>I am slowly making progress on a few more layout issues. My efforts are 
>incomplete, but with the new draft that Wendy just posted, I wanted to 
>make sure that I get my ideas out a little more quickly while there is 
>still time to incorporate them.
>
>My latest draft is at 
><http://www.webaim.org/wcag/wcag2_0_toc>http://www.webaim.org/wcag/wcag2_0_toc
>
>Right now, my draft is a strange hybrid between my own last draft and 
>Wendy's newest draft. The main points that I want to bring up are these:
>
>1. I have now actually created true page breaks, so that people can get an 
>idea of what that would be like.
>
>2. I have created a visual outline around each of the checkpoints. It is a 
>thin blue line surrounding the checkpoint itself, the definitions, 
>benefits, and success criteria. This groups the information visually.
>
>3. In my last post on this subject, I suggested that some of the 
>introductory materials be moved to go directly beneath the main guideline 
>text in a paragraph or two (or more) in a sub-heading which I have called 
>"overview". The name for this sub-heading is subject to discussion. *This 
>differs from Wendy's current thinking* (at least as far as I am able to 
>ascertain) of putting that content in the executive summary. Personally, I 
>think that the executive summary should be shorter than that particular 
>content (I am referring to the explanation of the "guiding principles"). I 
>envision an executive summary that resembles an Abstract in a scholarly 
>journal. Brief and concise. *I would like this issue discussed.*
>
>4. We need to be consistent on our terminology with regard to "design 
>principles" versus "guidelines" and "checkpoints." From my interpretation, 
>the "design principles" and the "guidelines" are really synonymous. The 
>term "design principles" is currently being used in a way which I think is 
>not quite right. We are using it to describe the group of words 
>"Presentation", "Interaction", "Comprehension", and "Technology 
>considerations". None of these words are principles. They are merely 
>semantic or cognitive organizers. I like these "organizers", by the way, 
>but I don't think that it is accurate to call them "principles." I _do_ 
>think that it could be accurate to call our guidelines principles, but I 
>think that it would be best to choose one word or the other, rather than 
>use both to mean the same thing.
>
>5. I have added a rudimentary navigation system of purely textual links 
>separated by vertical bars at both the top and the bottom of the page. I 
>have also added a "next page | previous page" feature at the bottom. I 
>realize that the next and previous page features can be taken care of with 
>proper RDF/meta markup, and that there are more sophisticated methods for 
>document navigation, but I am going for a rapid prototype here.
>
>6. Just a thought: I added the word "checkpoint" before each of the 
>checkpoints, so that it is clear what they are.
>
>---
>
>So that is what I have been doing today.
>
>Paul Bohman
>Technology Coordinator
>WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (<http://www.webaim.org>www.webaim.org)
>Center for Persons with Disabilities (<http://www.cpd.usu.edu>www.cpd.usu.edu)
>Utah State University (<http://www.usu.edu>www.usu.edu)

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45