Re: Proposed improvements to the mailing lists archives

le mer 20-03-2002 à 03:55, Al Gilman a écrit :
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/archives-improvements/
> 
> Dom, this I believe is most of what I would have to say.  I am sorry we have a lot of our talent tied up in the CSUN conference this week.

Do you think we should wait one more week to allow people attending the
CSun conference to send their feedback?
 
> AG:: 
> 
> I should have noted that threading in the archives does not flow over epoch boundaries.  Even if this document rapidly becomes overtaken by events I think we should include a more inclusive reference to the discussion such as 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=wai-xtech@w3.org+%22archive%3A%22
> 
> that will pull up the additional mockups contributed in September and some of the earlier discussions.
>        
> -- resume quote

I've added the link to the google search page.

>    Mailing list homepage
> 
> AG:: [editorial] This is not the homePage of the mailing list.  That is the page maintained by the convenors of the list outside the archives to which the archive pro-forma text refers.
> This page is the top-level index page or index of period-by-period indices.
> 
> -- resume quote

Changed to mailing list top level index page.

>         added dated titles to the links to the views by thread, author,
>                 and subject
> 
>                 so that links can be differentiated easily
> 
> AG:: These titles should be added into the corresponding links from other pages.  Same destination, use title to make them read more or less the same.
> 
> -- resume quote

Done: I've tried to make titles be as similar as possible in the 3 kind
of views.
                 
>         add "sort by" in the title of the links to the various sorted
>                 views
>                 [10]Kelly Ford's remarks (Mar 14 2002)
> 
> AG:: note I carried this into the message page.  At least in part.  Some of the link titleing that needs to be in more of the links from everywhere is still missing, I didn't fill it all in.  There still need to be a cross-review of "all links going the same place are stated in consistent [not necessarily identical] language."
> 
> -- resume quote

Same as above.

>         Added an anchor to the begin of the message, linked from the top
>                 of the navbar
>                 so that the navigation bar is really skippable
> 
> AG::
> 
> First, this got put in too soon.  The short path through the message page should gives author and date information before entering the message body.  This is essential context.  The minimum modification would be to move the 'skip' link to after the author and date dt/dd pairs.

I moved the link after the date and author fields (for some reason, I
thought these info were on the title).
 
> However, in the attached edit, note that I simply elimitated the navbar at the top of the page.  At this point, this is the better way to go; if we stick with the 'dl' formatting of the navbar.  It is just too many lines of frontmatter in the visual display as well, at which point is simply has to go.  It only make sense to put this at the top of the page if it makes sense in the visual view.  The speech-optimized order leaves it for last in any case.
> 
> It is still possible to use a more contemporary visual layout with the top nav stuff either compacted in a header that takes less vertical space, or divided into a short head and a left navigation bar.  But for the present linear organization with 'dl' display of the navbar it just makes sense to put the meat of the page after a very brief header and put the links to related pages at the foot.  The old way.
> 
> -- resume quote

As a regular user of the archives, I really don't think removing the
whole navbar from the top would be a good idea. I switched from a <dl>
list to a <ul> one, each field being marked up with <dfn>. It's as
compact as the current version but more cleanly marked up.
                 
>         Added accesskeys to the links in the navbar (@@@ one accesskey
>                 per function, but should be applied only to the first
>                 link filling this function)
>                 building a common interface to the archives
> 
> AG::  There is a problem with using accesskey for 'reply' and similar items that can have multiple links.  The person using the accesskey could be taken to one reply and never learn that there were more.  Offhand I don't have a proposal for this, only things we could try.
> 
> -- resume quote

I removed accesskeys from links which can appear several times.

                 
> Adding more informations about subscribing and posting on a mailing list
> homepage
> 
>    Done in a different piece of software... Should it be marked up
>    differently for accessibility reasons?
> 
> AG::  I don't understand what is being asked, here.
> 
> How-to information for sign-on and sign-off of the list goes on the true homePage, maintained by the cognizant group, not inline in the top level index page.  Even 'though it is pro-forma stuff that has to tell the standard story.  If there is going to be a systematic explanation of this it is in a list footer on the emails distributed.  The people who need to be instructed about this don't have mail readers that show them funny headers, nor do they parse mailto: syntax.
> 
> What chance is there of getting the message content on the message page presented some other way than in a 'pre' section?  This is a problem.
> 
> -- resume quote

Let's try to not mix things up. This project is only about the HTML
format of the mailing list archives, not the way the emails are
distributed and what could or should be added to those emails.

My remark comes from the fact that we currently have another project
which will add automatically on the top-level index page the policy for
subscribing and posting to the given mailing list. My question was to
know if this kind of information had to have a special markup for
accessible reasons and if you had strong opinions on where it should
appear - that is, 'where in the top level index page' [it's important
for many reasons that this information appears there, it doesn't mean
that it cannot appear in an hypothetical homepage of the mailing list]. 

    
> AG::  I don't see any mention of fundamental changes, fixing the way that threading breaks across time epochs, or supporting threaded reading or searching across lists.  A mail-me-this-message link in the archive, or a find-me-in-archives link in the distributed mail.  Is any of this under consideration?
> 
> -- resume quote

It is, but it's not in the scope of this project.

>      * introductory text on each mailing list: reponsability of the
>        maintainer of the mailing list
> 
> AG:: Yes.  Separate page with very brief title/hyperlink stuff here.

Any list maintainer can create a separate page if he wishes so, but the
top level index page must have some context information so that someone
arriving on this page knows what it's about.
 
>      * is it possible to have an accesskey in ml homepages and period
>        pages for the link to the lastest period/message?
> 
> AG:: Is it possible to have a link to the latest?  If so, it could have an accesskey.

right my question was dumb :) I fixed it.

>      * Should there be accesskeys on the period-page navbar?
> 
> AG:: If they go the same places as the accesskeys on the other pages, yes.  Please review the key nominations and other info in the four messages starting at
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2001Sep/author.html#31
> 
> -- resume quote

OK, I integrated the accesskeys as suggested by Greg. Thanks a lot for
the link!
 
>      * Is there a good reason why there is no W3C logo in the period and
>        message pages?
> 
> AG:: should be on period pages.  Is there a small one for the message page?
> 
> -- resume quote

Well, my question was more to know if there was a political reason for
not having a logo: maybe was it decided so that it doesn't look like W3C
endorses the content of any email sent to the archives.
 
>      * the new layout of the period and email views takes much more space
>        on the page: should we revert it or rely on the stylesheet for
>        that?
> 
> AG::  We will have to see what the stylesheet can do.  I do believe that the present structure is a problem for visual efficiency, but if we can just lose the top navbar on the message page I can be very happy.

Resolved above.

 
>      * how complex should be the search form?
> 
> It could perhaps have a select which defaults to this list but has some broader scopes if the search engine can cope.  But not many people will use it.  Probably best to simply leave this at a simple keyword search in the current list and push all more complicated options a link away.  The text of the "Help!" link should be extpanded to "more on searching" and both the next layer of explanation of the search tool and the advanced search form should be on the linked page or one more link from there.
> -- resume quote

Well, I think the current form is OK.
        
> Proposed amendments
> 
>    Index page
>           
>         move the search form at the bottom of the page
>                 [18]Charles' comment
> 
> AG:: mild disagreement.  See my earlier remarks about the standard form and placement of nav/search tool.  The search tool should not be off screen when the novice hits this page.

Well, to be honest, I didn't integrate this proposal since I didn't see
a good reason to do so. Charles, could you clarify why you'd want to
move that at the bottom of the page?
 
Al, what do you think of the new result? Should we wait for more
feedback? My next step will be to send the proposal to the W3C Team,
since they/we are among the biggest users of these archives and I'm sure
they'll have a lot of opinions about it :)

Thanks again!

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C's Webmaster
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 07:59:39 UTC