- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:13:44 -0400
- To: "Pawson, David" <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> > -----Original Message----- > From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org > [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Al Gilman >[...] > Please, for each guinea pig page, give > > a) a link to the page in question, and > b) your analysis of how this page breaks down into parts At 1:36 PM +0100 10/21/04, Pawson, David wrote: > >Question please Al. > Who are the primary audience for this vocabulary? >If its geeks or the man in the street, I'd probably >choose different words? > >Any suggestions please? Please, each of you contributing page structure descriptions, use terms that appeal to you. I don't want us to poison the process by suggesting what kinds of terms are good or bad for this purpose. People who experience the web as consumers should use terms that are meaningful to them in that context. People who design user experiences should use terms that appeal to them. People who design page transforms to make pages more usable under exceptional circumstances should use terms that appeal to them. We need to explore the variety of ways that the page structures could be described. In the end I think that we will have to make compromises between capturing the information that makes the model work across different presentations and couching the questions in terms that people can readily relate to. But the best way to do this is to overrun the bounds of the feasible range with respect to user-friendly vs. transformer-friendly. [And here user-friendly includes both consumer-users and producer-users of the notation.] And to make the tradeoffs in terms of actual concepts in circulation, not from scratch. Because even the terms that fall outside what we eventually settle on as the right band help to explain why some terms work better for some stakeholders. Al >regards DaveP > > > > The participants in the PF telecon today agreed to do this, > but please consider doing this even if you weren't on that call. > > We are trying to launch the development of a "dictionary of > canonical page part types." > > So what we want are example decompositions of > representative, preferrably live, pages for evidence as to > how authors are really structuring their work. > > Please, for each guinea pig page, give > > a) a link to the page in question, and > b) your analysis of how this page breaks down into parts > > The nominal asking is for people to do at least two pages. > > Please post your contributions before midnight UTC Sunday > 24 October. > > Al > > > >-- >DISCLAIMER: > >NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is >confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended >recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the >content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the >sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it >and any attachments from your system. > >RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by >its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However, it >cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are transmitted. >We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. > >Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and >any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent >those of RNIB. > >RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 > >Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 14:14:23 UTC