RE: [Review, Part III] Tantek Çelik / Ian Jacobs comments on 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0

See comments below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:40 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org; tantek@cs.stanford.edu
> Subject: [Review, Part III] Tantek Çelik / Ian Jacobs comments on 9
> April 2001 UAAG 1.0
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is the third and last of three emails that are the result of a
> review by Tantek Çelik of the 9 April 2001 (last call) draft of UAAG
> 1.0. [1].  This mail proposes some changes to improve the usability of
> the document.
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409/
> 
> ================================
> 1) Short checkpoint summaries
> ================================
> 
>    [I love this one.] Add a non-normative short summary
>    of each checkpoint at the beginning of each checkpoint.
>    For example, for checkpoint 3.3:
> 
>      3.3 No blinking text. Allow configuration to render animated
>          or blinking text as motionless, unblinking text.
> 
>    This should make it easier to "scan" the checkpoints to get
>    their essential requirement. Also, these headings can be
>    highlighted to make each checkpoint stand out more (at least
>    visually).
> 
>    Furthermore, these short headings (can be marked up as H5
>    headings) and can be used to construct an extended table of
>    contents (which would appear after the current short table of
>    contents).
> 
>   [Editor's note: If this type of heading is added, add this
>    information to the description of each checkpoint definition
>    at the beginning of section 2.]

EH: This seems like a good suggestion. It will probably lead to some
discussion.
> 
> ================================
> 2) Checkpoints 11.5, 2.3
> ================================
> 
> Tantek suggested making the list in 11.5 a real list (to make it
> more readable). For example, use <UL> lists and 'display: inline'.
> 
> On a related note, Charles has also suggested that the
> presentation of 2.3 be simplified.
> 
EH: Ok.

> ================================
> 3) Grouping of checkpoints in Guideline 12
> ================================
> 
> There are three types of requirements in Guideline 12:
> 
>  1) Accessibility of documentation (12.1)
>  2) Requirements for substance of documentation (12.2, 12.3, 12.5)
>  3) Requirements for structure of documentation (12.4).
> 
> I would like the prose of the Guideline to state this, and I'd
> like to switch 12.5 and 12.4 to make the checkpoint groupings
> consistent with the three types of requirements.
EH: Ok.
> 
> ================================
> 4) More navbars in glossary, references
> ================================
> 
> Provide navigation bars at the beginning of the glossary and
> references section (i.e., each key is listed at the beginning of
> the section, and links to the full entry).
> 
EH: Possibly OK..
> ================================
> 5) Print styles
> ================================
> 
> Tantek made some suggestions for a print style sheet to improve
> the black and white / color printed version. In particular, blue
> or red text is rendered as "grey" text in black and white, so the
> text is emphasized when in color but de-emphasized in grey. This
> can be fixed with (alternative) style sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 11:52:05 UTC