Feedback on Survey on Changes to Understanding, Techniques, and Quickref to clarify referencing WCAG issues

Below is some feedback on comments in the Survey on Changes to Understanding, Techniques, and Quickref to clarify referencing WCAG issues

On: Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria <>

Comment Gregg: "FIRST - This is good but I don't think it should be separate from the general understanding intro. collapse both together otherwise I don't think anyone will find this part. no need to be separate."

Shawn's perspective: One of the main goals for all editing this was to have a place to point people to with clear information about the Techniques, without them having to wade through a lot of other information. This separate page focusing on techniques would be pointed to from 100s of places, including:
* The Understanding Introduction <>
* The Techniques Abstract <>
* The Techniques Introduction <>
* The How to Meet / Quick Ref Introduction <>
* Every technique, e.g., the "Techniques are Informative" section of <>
* Every Understanding sub page, e.g., <>
* The FAQ answers (drafted at <>)
* W3C & WAI announcements & blog post when the docs are published for review and when updated.
I think they'll find it. :-)

Comment Gregg: "SECOND  Since this text is about "sufficient" techniques please move this down under suffiecient techniques rather than above in techniques in general It can go at the end of the sufficient techniques section"

Shawn's perspective: I think it gets more visibility higher up in the "Techniques are Informative" section. (Also, if you move it, that section becomes just one sentence.) Note 2 applies to all of the techniques, not just sufficient, yes? So I think it's best left where it is; however, I don't feel strongly...


Rewritten Sufficient and Advisory Techniques section of Understanding intro

The link is <>
(I didn't want to edit the survey without OK from Michael.)


Rewritten Introduction to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 <>

Comment Gregg: "hmmmm - nice and short but I think UNDERSTANDING TECHNIQUES woud be good to duplicate here on techniques document - why not. it is a good place to find this and it won't make the document measurably longer"

Shawn's perspective: Generally there are several reason for not duplicating content. For one thing, it's a maintenance issue -- have to remember to update it two places. More importantly, it's potentially confusing and very ANNOYING to readers. If they read it one place, then later start reading it another place, they'll have to waste effort to try to figure out if the text is different and if they need to read it all or not.


my 2 cents.


Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 02:21:32 UTC