Peter said:
[...]
There may
be some browsers that convert speech to text, so a11y would be improved
by shorter URI (without an underscore).
| * Does the chosen URI give hints about the content of the resource?
| Will it still make sense if the resource evolves?
|
| * Did you choose to locate the URI near the root level of your Web
| server? Are you certain it is the best location?
"Where are the FAQ notes?".
If a user does not know the URI, he may try direct navigation by typing
directly into the browser location bar.
For example, let me try guessing the CSS spec right now:-
www.w3.org/TR/css/
I have no idea what "TR" abbreviates. I never would have guessed it.
I've even seen that URL many times.
Ah, nn excellent example of a situation where a user might try direct
navigation!
Try directly navigating to the TR directory. Just lop off that "css/"
and go straight to the "TR". It's an awesome page. So good that I think
it should be in the FAQ.
Link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/
And if it isn't obvious from that document, "TR" stands for Technical
Recommendation. It's a common status abbreviation, like LC, or WD.
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#maturity-levels
No, but no one is guessing the FAQ Notes URLs anyway. People probably
wouldn't even know they are called "FAQ Notes". They might guess they
are called "FAQ Articles".
I doubt that. They are commonly referred to as "the notes" or "the faq
notes."
You provided evidence that you don't guess URLs (TR) and made the
generalization that no one is guessing the notes.
Maybe not many, maybe only a handful, but some.
The phenomenon of direct navigation is inversely correlated with the
prevalence of links within the site. The FAQ and notes don't have any
breadcrumbs or navbars.
The proposal for the notes link is directly below the h1 for the FAQ.
| comp.lang.javascript FAQ
| FAQ Notes
With that "FAQ NOtes" text linked to the faq_notes/faq_notes.html page.
The important part is the majority of respondents think leaving the
production URLs as they are is the best course of action.
If my vote counts, we have an exact tie:
Update contents at current URI:
David, Peter(you), Richard.
Create a new URI and change the contents there:
Garrett, Thomas, JR Stockton.
JR Stockton is not "agreeing" with Thomas, but offering a strategy.
| It might be easier to keep the Notes as they were a year ago, as an
| archive. and build and maintain, in a different directory, an entirely
| new structure filled by selective copying and editing.
That a/b user-testing easier. We would have a new place with the new
document can be a/b user-tested against the old (current) document that
the user (a reader and group poster) can compare and contrast to,
posting comments or sending them to me via email.
I think updating the HTML and making the page content more friendly is
a great idea and worth the investment.
Posting reasons for doing things a certain way can help to avoid
favoritism, real or perceived.
Updating HTML:
pro: SEO
con: risk of introducing errors
Updating contents:
pro: corrects mistakes
pro: allows for clarification of things
Garrett
