W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > September 2008

Comments on Comparative requirements analysis for older Web users

From: <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:04:38 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <1729.>
To: andrew@w3.org
Cc: wai-eo-editors@w3.org

Hi Andrew,

Below are additional comments on

1. "Comparative requirements analysis for older Web users"
Please reconsider the title. See EOWG minutes from 5 Sept for ideas.

2. "Recommendations identified from the Literature Review:" column header
Can you simplify this? Perhaps "Recommendations from others" or such? See
the text in my suggested Introduction for wording ideas.

3. "A version of the table that considers ATAG and UAAG in addition to
WCAG is also available
A more detailed version of the table that considers WCAG 2.0 sufficient
and advisory techniques is also available."
How about having just one other version that has both? How about making
that an Appendix of the Lit Rev itself (and this simple page/table a "WAI

4. "Key to symbols and abbreviations used in the tables - CP means
Checkpoint - n.a. means that no WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were applicable -
n.c. means no comments were required"

You can get rid of "CP" since that's not longer used in this document.
I don't think you need both n.a. and n.c. &#8211; just "n.a." means no
WCAG 1.0 checkpoints are applicable and there are no comments.
So then you can make this section into a simple sentence.

More importantly, please reconsider the issue of what to put in the empty
cells, if anything. We need to check best practices for empty cells in a
data table...

Could you take another edit pass at the comments. I&#8217;m not sure why
some of them are there. Specifically, some just expound on the

6. Cell alignment.
I suggest aligning top, e.g., td {vertical-align: top;}
Also, in order to have equal alignment, either all cells need to be <p>s
or none of them.

7. Other suggestions incorporated in the Introduction suggestion sent in a
separate e-mail.

8. In EOWG on 5 Sept we got into discussions about purpose and audience
that would have been answered in a requirements/analysis. I know we do not
want to spend much time on it; however, I wonder if we do need a few
bullet points to agree on?

Thanks for considering these.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 19:05:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 23 June 2020 20:41:40 UTC