RE: Checkpoint 1.1 - handling the rest of the comments

Thanks Wendy

 

A couple comments / questions 

They are below marked with GV:

 

Gregg

 

 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

Director - Trace R & D Center 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

===========

 

Comment #3

Mark Schult, 21 Oct 2002 [10]

Proposes to reprioritize the current items so that level 3 has
identifiable 

goals.

 

Proposal #3

No change to the checkpoint.

Rationale: The levels are clearly defined [10.5].  Balancing the load 

between levels is not reason enough for us to change the priority.  At
this 

point, it is Ok if there are not criteria at the 2nd and 3rd level 

(although we received several comments about the priority structure - a 

separate issue).

 

GV:  Good. But we need to be sure it is clear that this will be done
"automatically" at the users end - and is not a responsibility of the
author.  (Translating into sign language)

 

===========

 

Comment #5

Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [11]

"Examples" #4: Change "described in words" to "read"

 

Proposal #5

Label the examples consistently throughout the guidelines.

 

Current wording:

Example 1: providing a short label for a button/link.

Example 2: providing a short label and a longer explanation of a data
chart.

Example 3: providing a short label and a longer explanation of an
animation.

Example 4: providing a short label and a transcript for an audio file
that 

can be described in words.

Example 5: providing a label for content that cannot be described in
words.

 

Proposed wording:

Example 1: an image used as a button.

Example 2: a data chart.

Example 3: an animation.

Example 4: an audio file of a speech.

Example 5: an audio file of a symphony.

 

Rationale:  Primarily, this is a matter of style. It also improves the 

consistency with the rest of the guidelines.  I prefer short labels 

followed by detailed explanation to help a reader quickly skim for an 

example that meets their needs.

 

 

GV:   I like the short titles- but I think they should be followed with
what you should do about them.   One of the purposes of the old examples
was to show that some types of information needed more text as an
alternative than did others.  (Maybe that is what you intended anyway)

 

 

===========