FW: [minutes] 5 october telecon

Sorry - I meant to send this to the entire list...

 

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

________________________________

From: Loretta Guarino Reid 
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:20 PM
To: 'Wendy Chisholm'
Subject: RE: [minutes] 5 october telecon

 

I really wish I could have attended our last meeting.

 

I'm a bit confused about my action item. It sounds like the proposal is
to changing the general technique to "Writing section titles that are
descriptive" and turning the current techniques into prose that explain
why they contribute to making a title descriptive. Have I got this
right? I can't find any other examples of techniques that contain this
kind of explanation. In fact, the only example I could find at all was
John's writeup of SC 5.

 

The examples (and specifically the counter examples) I wanted to add
were addressed to the different items in the current list. I this going
to be confusing?

 

The survey didn't ask about the current advisory techniques. Do we want
to keep all of them? Should any of them be combined in a similar way? 

 

I've done some preliminary clean-up and editing on the wiki, in case it
is helpful to see where I've gotten to.

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Guide_to_3.1_L3
_SC4

 

Thanks, Loretta

 


  L3SC4 - propose that the only sufficient technique is the first one
and the
   rest are part of that general technique.

   <scribe> ACTION: loretta to rewrite the guide and write the general
   technique for guideline 3.1 L3SC4 [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/05-wcag-teamb-minutes.html#action02]