W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: FAQ - where are the FAQs for this list?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:50:54 -0500 (EST)
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
cc: WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202181746440.10477-100000@tux.w3.org>

thanks for the comments. My responses inline...

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Charles F. Munat wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
   > The first version is at http://www.soundingboard.co.nz/waifaq.nsf/
   > and represents a draft at answering some questions.
   > enjoy (and please be gentle and helpful in criticism <grin/>)

  At first glance, it looks good (and it is sorely needed).

  Some ideas:

  1. Questions should be grouped by subject. For example, all questions
  about the alt attribute should be grouped together.

  One possible organization for the FAQ might be by checkpoint. An even
  better idea is to permit the user to select different ways of organizing
  the questions/answers.

Yes, how to organise the questions is an interesting topic in itself. I am
hoping to get some people who are really good at that (my Mother happens to
be one of them...) to help, but general comments about how people would
organise it in their own library are appreciated. By checkpoint is certainly
one approach that should be supported. SSee also question 4...

  2. It would be nice if we were careful to use correct terminology. For
  example, I ran across a couple of references to "alt tags." Here is an
  opportunity to correct those misaprehensions.


  3. In some instances there may be significant dissent wrt a particular
  answer. It should be possible to append a dissenting view (or a link to

Well, we are not sure exactly what to do with dissenting views. Maybe we
should point to them via links - for example to discussions. It is always
possible to use annotea services to note them...

  4. While the author for a specific question is of interest, I'd rather
  it wasn't quite so prominent (is this temporary?). These answers should
  reflect general consensus on the list (no doubt one that doesn't will be
  quickly pointed out). Making the author's name so prominent gives the
  impression that these are personal opinions rather than the views of the

well at the moment they basicallly are the author's personal opinion <grin/>.
Seriously, I agree, but I think that initially while this contains some
things that the 4 of us are not sure about I think it is helpful to know who
to blame for a particular answer. However while we would like it to end up
much less prominent, it is good to know who proposed a specific suggestion...

Thanks, helpful comments.

Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:50:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC