Thread Subject: Re: default tab on the wiki
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Oct 17 2006 12:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: default tab on the wiki"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: default tab on the wiki"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
How about we put at the very top of the page a link to the discussion that
says something like
"Discussion on XYZ"
That way people who go to the page immediately see the link to the
discussion page (rather than having to notice the tab - which is less
Or we can use Blog software.
Using a single tool has the advantages and disadvantages of the Universal
Remote Control. All there but sometimes easier to understand if separate.
Have we given up on threaded email discussion? People are very familiar
with this. Only problem of course is that unless you practice very tight
subject line discipline - the threads can be a mess or misleading.
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
> Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] default tab on the wiki
> Jared wrote:
> "I have to side with Bruce here. I don't think anything is
> gained by making "discuss this document" the default."
> I agree that the discuss page doesn't help much. You still
> have to "edit"
> it. And if people are comfortable editing a wiki page, they
> can just edit the page.
> For Web and Software, I have set up pages with the current
> provisions grouped for discussion as was recommended on the
> mailing list. I was thinking of soliciting volunteers to
> "own" or "manage" these pages. Those who are comfortable with
> editing the wiki can put their comments right on the wiki
> page, prefaced by their name. I will encourage this by
> providing an example on each page. Those who don't want to
> learn to edit wiki pages, can send their comments on the
> mailing list. The managers can periodically consolidate both
> the wiki and mailing list comments into a summary of the
> positions we are consensing on or clustering around. The
> comments that are posted to the Wiki would always be archived
> in the history, right? If that's not usable, we could always
> send all of the original comments to the mailing list for
> archival, once the positions are summarized, with a link from
> the summary to the document in the mailing list archive.
> Jared wrote:
> "I guess I'd rather just see how things fall into place
> before forcing a new convention upon users in the hopes that
> it will work better."
> I agree. In the spirit of user centered design, let's use the
> tools for a while and adjust as necessary based on user feedback.
> I am also going to offer to the Web and Software subcommittee
> members that I will provide some training on wikis if they
> are interested.
> BTW, I asked Curtis Chong about the convention of using
> greater than (>) or less than (<) symbols to mark content
> that is from another posting that you are responding to. I
> was worried that this is not very friendly for screen reader
> users. He recommends using double quotes instead so I plan to
> start doing mine that way (see above).