Thread Subject: Re: A few odds and ends
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: mike paciello
Date: Sat, Oct 14 2006 5:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: A few odds and ends"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: A few odds and ends"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I'd have a very difficult time arguing against this notion. I think Jim is
write. Functionally, all of this could be done using MediWiki as the CMS...
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:36 AM
To: 'TEITAC Communications Task Force'
Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] A few odds and ends
I think we're approaching the point where the advantages of an integrated
CMS are becoming clear!
On one site:
1. public home page with all the usual
mission/news/why-you-should-care/links to related programs 2. login for
members that identifies the member's role(s) and promotes/formats the info
accordingly 3. contains several tools for different purposes: blog, wiki,
static pages for reference, etc.
4. supports subscription/aggregation/notification AND listservs, letting
users and members choose
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bailey Bruce [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:08 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] A few odds and ends
> > Just a few things I did today - because what else is there
> to do on a
> > Friday night when you're ill? :-(
> These are all awesome! I feel bad for wondering if you catch colds
> > I think the most outstanding item was regarding the two-day
> notice for
> > consensus items and determining cochairs.
> Agreed. A reminder for the subcommittees to determine and post their
> methods of work is also important.
> > At a minimum, conveners should be apprised of this.
> Since the conveners are committee members, this has happened.
> > Some would get the same message 8 times!
> Understood, we need to avoid that, and nothing we have come up with so
> far warrants that much redundancy!
> > But how much information will there be that should be
> pushed to both
> > committee members AND the public? Not much, I would guess.
> I agree that people interested in the meat space meeting will be
> watching the Access Board page and the Federal Register.
> But details like our guidance that captioning be proactively arranged
> is an important message to all the subcommittee members, and for
> encouraging wider participation.
> > I think posting it prevalently on the sites (like I have done with
> > Tim's message on the wiki) is probably sufficient.
> This step is important, and we will have plenty of traffic to the site
> that doesn't come from the subcommittee members, but my concern is for
> non-committee people who are active on the lists but not yet convinced
> of the utility of the wiki.
> > 3. I could (I think) aggregate all of the addresses from all of the
> > lists and use that to send *occasional* blast messages to everyone
> > that is on at least one list.
> Of the three suggested approaches, I like this one the most, assuming
> it turns out not to be too much work.
> My feeling is that if Tim is posting to the committee members, that is
> an appropriate occasion for a follow-up message from someone on the
> Communication Task Force. The message to the committee members would
> be referenced, not repeated. That citation could be followed up with
> other links to new but polished wiki articles.