Edit comment LC-961 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1179 Next: LC-1508

Comment LC-961: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> on behalf of W3C WAI; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Editorial suggestions

Proposed Change:

note: some similar suggestions for other appendices and so any changes should be synched

suggestion: unbold \"Note:\" and \"Example:\" (rationale: with them bold my eye is drawn from the bold term to the bold Note or Example, bypassing the actual definition. also makes it harder to skim the terms )

suggestion: remove the numbers from the notes and examples -- e.g., instead of \"Note 1:\", \"Note 2:\", \"Note 3:\" just have \"Note:\", \"Note:\", Note:\".. (rationale: simplifies, makes more friendly and less engineering-like and formal)

suggestion: consider putting the referenced terms in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design). consider using standard link colours for terms

suggestion: consider removing [brackets] from references. (rationale: simplifies visual design. also some people will not know what the brackets mean and will waste cognitive processing trying to figure it out.)

suggestion: Consider deleting one of the â€œnormativeï¿½?s -- from the <h1>: \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" or from the first sentence: â€œThis section is normative.ï¿½? If leave first sentence, change to â€œAppendix A: Glossary is normative.ï¿½?

suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" repetitive with <h1> and links to self)

question: should the <title> and the <h1> match, or be more similar?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [EDITORZ] [HOLD] Discussed in the 28 September 2006 telecon: accepted by unanimous consent http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept partial} DONE remove bold from "Note:" and "Example:" throughout WCAG documents. DONE remove italics from links to glossary terms DONE remove square brackets from links to How to Meet/Understanding DONE remove the parentheticals "(Informative)" and "(Non-Normative)" from the appendices and @@ replaceoccurrences of non-normative with informative throughout and include links to the glossary definition of informative Internal draft updated 29 Sept. Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0326.html; Resolution: suggestion: unbold \"Note:\" and \"Example:\" (rationale: with them bold my eye is drawn from the bold term to the bold Note or Example, bypassing the actual definition. also makes it harder to skim the terms ) response: We have unbolded both "Note:" and "Example:" throughout. suggestion: remove the numbers from the notes and examples -- e.g., instead of \"Note 1:\", \"Note 2:\", \"Note 3:\" just have \"Note:\", \"Note:\", Note:\".. (rationale: simplifies, makes more friendly and less engineering-like and formal) response: Numbering notes is a common practice within standards and makes them easier to reference, so we have decided to keep the numbers. Note that the numbering only appears when multiple notes are present. suggestion: consider putting the referenced terms in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design). consider using standard link colours for terms response: We have removed the italics from the terms, but have retained the link colors to make it easier to differentiate between links to the glossary and links to other locations. suggestion: consider removing [brackets] from references. (rationale: simplifies visual design. also some people will not know what the brackets mean and will waste cognitive processing trying to figure it out.) response: We have removed the square brackets from the links to "How to Meet" at the end of each success criterion. However, the use of square brackets for references (links to the references appendix) is part of the W3C style (http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References). suggestion: Consider deleting one of the â€œnormativeï¿½?s -- from the <h1>: \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" or from the first sentence: â€œThis section is normative.ï¿½? If leave first sentence, change to â€œAppendix A: Glossary is normative.ï¿½? response: We have removed the parentheticals "(Informative)" and "(Non-Normative)" from the appendices and have replaced occurrences of non-normative with informative throughout. We have also included links to the glossary definition of informative in the glossary where appropriate. suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" repetitive with <h1> and links to self) question: should the <title> and the <h1> match, or be more similar? response: The guidelines are no longer split into multiple pages, so the quick TOC and variations between <title> and <h1> are no longer an issue.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)