Hi Rainer,
Thanks for your follow-up email. I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back
to you. Besides my vacation to Florida last week, I've been in class this week.
Florida was in the low 60's, so it didn't end up being too warm. In fact, I
wish it had been warmer. Still, it was nice to get away.
I like how your name is pronounced. You're the first Rainer (Rhine, er) I've
ever met. :-)
To shorten the email a bit, I've snipped out text that I don't have any further
comments on.
I intend to get the next chapters out for review next week. This week didn't
end up working because of the class I've been taking.
Alysson
>>>p. 16 I wonder if there's a better explanantion of
>>
>>noun phrases, as all example items actually contain a
>>verb (Check, Ensure, etc.).
>>
>>[AT] Actually, the noun phrase concerns the list
>>introduction only ("Legal requirements checklist:"),
>>not the actual list entries.
>
>
>Mmm, OK. I may need to re-read that, as this was not clear to me. It was
>probably me, and not the writing.
[AT] It could very well be the writing. :-)
>>>p. 23 I know what you mean by "low vision", but is
>>
>>there a better term? I know "poor vision" may not be
>>PC, but it translates better. Just a thought.
>>
>>[AT] I just did a Google search and it looks like
>>"low vision" is the correct term to use. For example,
>>Lighthouse International even defines the term. Check
>>out:
>>http://www.lighthouse.org/low_vision_defined.htm.
>
>
>Rats, that's too bad. I'm worried that it may cause translation issues, or
>even readability issues for people with poor English skills. I'm not
>disagreeing with you; it seems to be the correct term, so use it. Perhaps the
>people that originally defined the term weren't thinking of these other
>issues. Maybe it just sounded more "PC".
[AT] I bet you're right that those who originally defined the term weren't
thinking of translation or nonnative English folks. It seems like "PC" has been
a big deal the past few years. Some user interface designers at Sun are no
longer using "disabled" as in "disabled button."
>>>Can I assume the index just automagically reflects
>>the changes in the rest of the document (chapter)?
>>
>>[AT] I wish it were automagic. :-) I did have to
>>manually make the index changes to reflect the
>>changed content, and I'm making a bunch of
>>refinements along the way. That said, you don't need
>>to spend time reviewing the index. I'm being fairly
>>neurotic about checking the changes, so don't feel
>>obliged to check them yourself. Your comments on the
>>content itself are invaluable.
>
>
>OK, I'll skip the Indexes. I wish (for your sake) that they were automagic.
>That would make life a lot easier for you. It may prove valuable (for you to
>have others like me) to go through the index itself when we've done all of the
>chapter segments, and you're testing the first fully-stiched-together copy or
>two of the whole Guide. Even if you're "neurotic" about it, another few sets
>of eyes may help. I'm sure it's like many other tasks where you just can't
>help the eyes glazing over. Librarians are actually restricted to scanning
>shelves for order for a limited period each time, for this very reason.
[AT] Great idea. Thanks. It would be helpful to have other eyes review the
index. Do you think folks would want to see the entire guide with the index or
just the entire index? I could provide just the index by itself.
>>>It looks really good. You are both to be commended
>
><snip>
>
>>Well done!
>>
>>[AT] Thank you!
>
>
>You're very welcome. You deserve it. And, on behalf of the community, let me
>thank you for all your hard work.
[AT] Your welcome, Rainer. I appreciate the acknowledgement. :-)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
