Re: [tools list] updated ...

Hi Shawn,

Thanks for your comments, some thoughts below:


Shawn Henry wrote:
> * High: It is not standard to use fieldset as a label for a group of 
> checkboxes (or radio/option buttons), afaik. This could cause some 
> problems with AT, as Andrew pointed out. (Sorry that I didn't note this 
> before. :(

I understand the problem with radio buttons and options but checkboxes have a different usage. They also must have different names according to HTML. This is also highlighted by the WAI curriculum:
  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam96-0.htm>

Are you sure that I should remove the fieldset? Also, Andrew pointed out that it in a specific mode, JAWS will keep reading the legend before the checkbox label and was arguing for shorter names. I'm not sure how many other ATs are affected by removing the fieldsets/legend.


> * Having a gray background under all the form area really helps. Suggest 
> for now adding a plain black border. And list for later to fancy it up.
> 
> * In Guidelines options - Consider including the acronym WCAG with "Web 
> Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", probably at the beginning (even 
> though that's not formally correct, it's probably much better usability)
> 
> * Flip the bits around in the  <h1> & titles around (to front load) so 
> "List of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Simple Search" becomes 
> "Simple Search for List of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" (also for 
> "Complete List of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools"[1]
> (fyi, we did this with the bcase docs, e.g., 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/soc.html)

OK, easy fixes.


> * Low: In Guidelines options - not sure about "US" abbreviation? should 
> it be USA? or written out?

I think USA is very formal and kind of conservative but I am not too fussed either way. Any preferences from your side?


>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/tools/simple>
> 
> * High: Remove fieldsets, use plain text labels for checkboxes, probably 
> ending in colons.

So, remove the fieldset around the checkbox groups and also remove the labels for each checkbox?


> * High: I understood from the last EOWG discussion that there would be 
> just the Language and the Guidelines options? I thought we decided that 
> the Functionality was too difficult to understand and potentially 
> confusing for the Simple Search.

True, I just wanted you and Judy to have a chance to see it. I like it now and think it is more useful (because it potentially returns way less results) but am happy to take it down too. Let me know.


> * Also note that a *major* advantage to just having 2 options (rather 
> than 3) is that the Search button can go above the fold,  to the right 
> of the Language, under the Guidelines.

I intentionally put it down because it is easier to find (more logical place). For example for screen magnification. Again, I'm happy to change (I expect the languages box to grow anyway).


> * Medium: Make the columns closer together, that is, have less space 
> between the Languages and the Guidelines. This is important for people 
> using screen magnification (in the current layout they could get lost in 
> the white space in the center). (from EO IRC log: 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/03-eo-irc.html#T14-31-40)

The solution for this problem was the gray background (to communicate form contents). If you feel less space between the boxes looks visually better, then I will reduce (it is currently 1em).


>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/tools/advanced>
> 
> * High: In Guidelines options - Put WCAG at top in bold (like in Simple 
> Search page)

OK, easy fix. Should it be pre-checked (as in the simple search)?


> * High: Remove fieldsets, use plain text labels for checkboxes, probably 
> ending in colons.

As above. I'm unsure what you mean exactly.


> * I thought we decided in the last EO telecon to use phrases instead of 
> short labels? e.g. instead of "Support for Guidelines" something like 
> "Checks for these guidelines:", and "Web Site Format" -> "Checks these 
> Web formats:", and "Authoring Tool Integration" -> "Integrates with 
> these authoring tools:", etc.

Yes, but I thought the grouping also addressed this. However, as this grouping will no longer exist (see below), I will change to longer phrases (I did already increase them slightly).


> * I appreciate your attempt at grouping the options! After hearing the 
> discussion in EO (which yielded no plausible suggestions for grouping) 
> and seeing a pass at it, I think that any grouping is going to be too 
> generic/arbitrary/non-specific to be useful. Specifically, seeing the 
> group names in "Search Options" (orange links in box top right), I find 
> them not at all useful; where as the previous listing of each option was 
> very useful.

Yes, agreed. Note that it is also possible to add back the old search options (in the right side bar) yet keep the grouping. Just a thought, I am not too hung on the grouping...


> * Were you going to link from the options to descriptions in Selecting 
> Tools?

Yes and no. The selecting tools and the tools list have drifted far apart by now. I think we should continue working on the tools list to make sure the terms are usable, then go back and update the selecting tools accordingly. Do you agree with this approach?


> * In Platform Integration options - Consider re-ordering so the most 
> common ones are listed first

Wouldn't that seem like we are advertising Windows? I prefer them alphabetically sorted. Otherwise, please give me the sort order you deem most useful.


> * I like how you got the Search buttons throughout & think the Back to 
> Top is good; however, if they don't stay in future tweaks (e.g., 
> changing grouping), I think that's OK, too.

I tried it after each group of checkboxes but that was way too much. I'll play around and see what other options there are (maybe after each two?).


> * Low: Add space between the edge of the background gray box and 
> internal stuff, e.g. fieldset borders.

Yes, forgot to do that on the advanced too.


> Both, but way low:
> * If you do use fieldsets, it would be easier to read and look better if 
> you added a space before and after the label, so the border doesn't run 
> into the letters; however, I'm not sure if that would cause other 
> problems. Also it looks nice if the items are lined up under the label, 
> that is, they have the same left alignment.

I will play around with CSS padding/margin for the legend of the fieldset but I don't know how well supported this is across browsers.

As to the list alignment, on the simple search I reduced the list indentation to make the boxes more compact. On the advanced however, we have tons of space. Do you prefer less list indentation or more legend indentation? (not sure how well the latter works across browsers though.)


> [1] btw, what is the h1 & title of the page with results from a search?

Currently "List of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Search Results" but that will be flipped too.


Regards,
  Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ | 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | 
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 20:55:34 UTC