Re: sections -- Re: [style guide] Thoughts on approach

I'm fine with it -- as long as it's succinct -- but I don't need to tell you that. ;-)

On 6/30/2017 12:07 PM, Sharron Rush wrote:
> I actually do have content for all these sections if you think this is a good approach which is what I am seeking agreement on.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks, Sharron,
> 
>     On 6/30/2017 10:14 AM, Sharron Rush wrote:
> 
>         I am thinking about how this will be presented and would like to suggest this format.  Sarah and Shawn, if you agree I will format the wiki to reflect these sections:
> 
> 
>     Until we have important, clear content for a section, I suggest that we don't include it. I'm  thinking it's better to keep this simple and not have empty or weak sections for now.
> 
>     ~Shawn
> 
> 
>         *Introduction* – What the guide is meant to do, how it will make our job easier, and how to use it.*
> 
>         Voice* – Can we make a statement about what we want the quality of the voice to be? I am thinking about some of the adjectives we used to describe how we wanted the web site to be.  Some words that will suggest rhythm, and maybe a list of voice qualities to avoid. Each statement could then be explained it in more detail and examples provided for how to put it into practice*.
> 
>         Tone* – This seems a bit trickier and might entail how to use the voice we agree on with different tones. There will be variation depending on different scenarios, do you agree?  This may be a place to reference our personas.
> 
>         *Style* – After introducing the guide and setting voice and tone, that's when I think we get into the style guide items that Shawn and Annabelle started and Sarah expanded on.
> 
>         *Specialist language* – Since this is a specialized filed, should we include any guidance on how to reference disability, W3C process, referencing materials or anything else that is super-specialized for our environment?
> 
>         Throughout I strongly believe that we should use as many examples as possible and be specific to our own stuff, as the first set of guides has done. Is this an approach we can agree on? or have I overlooked or misunderstood any of it? This is new to me so don't hesitate to let me know.
> 
>         Thanks,
>         Sharron
> 
>         -- 
>         Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
>         /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
> /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/

Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 17:12:30 UTC