W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Regrets and suggestions for more efficent review

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:48:49 -0400
Message-ID: <393FC061.72D84DDC@w3.org>
To: Eric and Jennifer <jenniferanderic@email.msn.com>
CC: jongund@uiuc.edu, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ehansen@ets.org
Eric and Jennifer wrote:
> I am unable to attend the telecon today. I also have a couple of
> suggestions.

Hi Eric (assuming this is Eric - the email isn't signed),

Thanks for sending regrets.
> 2. I think that we need a new working draft of the document, at least of the
> sections that we have worked on. I find that there is too much to remember
> the context and it is hard to comment in an efficient manner.

I will publish a new document tomorrow with whatever has
changed since 7 May. That may not be much. In particular,
none of the minimal requirements discussions will be captured
there. That information is being stored for now in the
minimal reqs document [1] linked from the WAI UA home page.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/05/ua-minreqs
> 1. It would be helpful if people would provide more context for their
> comments. I think that it is very helpful when people show explicitly how
> the comment would impact the language of the guidelines. For example one can
> say:
> <Old checkpoint Z.Z (7 May version)>
> xx xxxx x x
> </Old checkpoint Z.Z (7 May version)>
> <New checkpoint Z.Z>
> xx xxxxss  x x
> </New checkpoint Z.Z>

Yes, I agree. If you don't indicate the version of the document
and the checkpoint numbers change, it's very hard to look back
at the record and understand what the context is.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 11:48:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:27 UTC