Thread Subject: Re: idea to stimulating on-line dialog

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Oct 11 2006 9:59 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: idea to stimulating on-line dialog"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I agree that we shouldn't do this. I think it is up to each subcommittee to
decide how they will approach the work of reviewing the current standards.

Andi




"Gregg
Vanderheiden"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Communications Task
Sent by: Force'"
teitac-tools-boun < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = .o cc
rg
Subject
Re: [teitac-tools] idea to
10/11/2006 09:11 stimulating on-line dialog
AM


Please respond to
TEITAC
Communications
Task Force
<teitac-tools@lis
t.teitac.org>






I think that this begins to focus the discussion on just editorial
discussion of the individual provisions rather than looking at the standard
as a whole. I don't think this is a good idea at this point.

We already have links to the standard itself. Maybe just links to the
Provisions (without preamble) with links to each subsection as well to make
it easy to jump to that would be helpful. But I would put that on the main
page - rather than a wiki.


Gregg

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Bailey Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:39 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Subject: [teitac-tools] idea to stimulating on-line dialog
>
> What do people think of having a version of 508 Technical
> Standards (subpart B) on the Wiki?
>
> I am thinking of one article (page) per standard.
>
> The provision, as is, would be in read only segment at the
> top. People would add comments underneath. To get the
> conversations started, I am thinking three stimulating
> headings like what we tried to use for the panel discussions:
> What's Working? What's Not Working? What's New?
> (Or maybe, the good, the bad, the ugly?) Following that
> would be ideas on what to do with the provision in the
> refresh. If it facilities the subcommittees, we could also
> try the approach for subparts A, C, D.
>
> I can just try and get started with this free form, or maybe
> Jared could you make a template for this?
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: idea to stimulating on-line dialog"