Re: Comments on Comparative requirements analysis for older Web users

Thanks for the comments Shawn,

I've been through the 8/Aug and 5/Sept EO minutes as well and think I've 
accommodated everything as appropriate.

The document is updated on

Note I'm still trying to get hold of Liam for some CSS assistance. See 
below also.

Andrew wrote:
> 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.

DONE - and the collected ideas listed for this week, then scrapped.

> 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.

Trying "Collected recommendations"

> 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
> resource")?

In progress.

> 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.

CP was supposed to be GL - swapped and retained as GL is still used. 

If we can dispose of "GL", then the simple sentence would also go 
off-screen just as soon as the "n.a." goes off-screen

> 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...

See separate email. Trying off-screen comment in the interim.

> 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
> recommendation.

Tried to tidy up - any you think should still be scrapped?

> 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.

Thanks for that - adapted and used

> 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?

Did you make some notes on this?

> Thanks for considering these.
> Regards,
> ~Shawn

Andrew Arch
Web Accessibility and Ageing Specialist
W3C/ERCIM, Sophia Antipolis, France
Ph +33 (0)4 92 38 79 46

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 12:42:48 UTC