- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 05:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I don't think there are hard and fast rules. In some cases a long, detailed document that incorporates a lot of W3C material and a lot of other stuff is really useful, in other cases the quicktips is ideal, and in other cases it is something else again. In order to support these things, it is important that the WCAG is actually a technical reference first and foremost, since people will always have different needs and so different ideas of what is the most user friendly format. (And yes, constructive concrete feedback about how to make the WAI site in particular, and the W3C site in general, more usable is appreciated for the occasions when we find time to work on it. There are feedback lists established for the purpose such as site-comments@w3.org so we can collect these things). cheers Charles On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, David Woolley wrote: > I have gone through the online documentation and created a 20 page Microsoft > Word report that is based on the Priorities and Checkpoints for each section > with examples and explanations for each. I was once told that documents like this (guidelines for people too busy to read and understand properly) are too long if they are over about 3 pages. > The conetent is from the W3C, I have just massaged it to make it a little > more understandable and organized for people. This implies that there are accessiblity/usablity problems with the W3C web site. Would you care to elaborate. -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 05:30:27 UTC