- From: Bazzmann.Com - Marco Trevisan <info@bazzmann.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:23:38 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Wendy A Chisholm wrote: Hi Wendy! It's a good stuff! I'm a bit doubtful around the designer definition: "Layout Designer, Stylistic Designer, Interaction Designer, Navigation Designer" I think Layout and Stylistic Designer are redundant because of is the same role, a webdesigner has to know both roles basically. It could be different the Interaction and Navigation Designer and both from the Layout designer, but Layout and Style are the same thing for me, in Italy we call it normally Web Designer. So, I'm asking myself if it's a good thing to split them in different roles or it is better to keep them one. I think that peoples who begin to understand accessibility (specially outside USA) could ask: "ok, there's so many roles... but, we're the roles for webdesigner?" Is it right to apply them? Or there are other roles for me? Just a doubt. > 1. it is difficult for people new to WCAG to piece together all of the > pieces. They need a roadmap. Since the resources include those written I agree. I think beginners need a roadmap and they need a clear reference to relationships that are linked from WCAG to others workgroups. A lot of peoples think that Bobby validation is the goal of WAI-AAA accessibility. > element to describe the document." Some people would rather see a > testable statement such as, "Check that each HTML element has a TITLE > element." Matt has me thinking that we might want both types of I think that "human" statement (the second example) works better. > 1. Is it helpful to complete the exercise begun at [1]? Yes. Good. > 2. Is it helpful to create a roadmap of how the pieces of WCAG 2.0 fit > together? Will a roadmap help WCAG WG move forward on WCAG 2.0? I think roadmap is necessary! :) > 3. How do people feel about two levels of detailed statements at the > technology-specific level? Any reactions to [3]? Many peoples feel the statement "Use the TITLE element to describe the document" too difficult to understand (it is too programmer-side) and they feel better the second statement. They need simple words to understand. Best, Marco -- Bazzmann Labs(c) - Accessibilita', usabilita', webdesign e standard W3C ::--------------------------------::---------------------------------:: http://www.bazzmann.it | Il sito ufficiale di Bazzmann Labs. http://www.bazzmann.com | La risorsa per informare e aggiornare. http://www.dev2dev.it | Elemento D2D002
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 10:18:55 UTC