W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: my action item from AUWG call 23 June 2009

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:11:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4A48BD77.9000900@utoronto.ca>
To: "Boland Jr., Frederick E." <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Would it help if we moved the two normative sections of the Introduction 
down into the Conformance section which is already Normative?:

- Definition of authoring tool
- Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Cheers,
Jan




Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote:
> In response to my action item, I reviewed references [1], [2], and [3], 
> and didn’t notice anything specifically referring to mixing “normative” 
> and “informative” within a “section”, other than Good Practice 2 in [3] 
> and Requirement 7 in [4]. 
> 
>  
> 
> Good Practice 2 has as a technique:
> 
>  
> 
> *“Techniques*
> 
>    1. For each section in the specification:
>           * Determine if the content is normative or informative and
>             explicitly label it as either “normative” or “informative.”
> 
> “
> 
> I’m not sure if the “Introduction” of the latest ATAG draft specifically 
> meets this good practice.  I thought the “Introduction” part itself was 
> a “section”.  Then how can each of the parts within the “Introduction” 
> be “sections”?   Are they “subsections” of “Introduction” section?  If 
> so, then maybe they can be labeled as “subsections”, with an explanatory 
> sentence right after “Introduction” heading saying something like “The 
> Introduction section is composed of the following subsections: .., which 
> may have differing normativity designations ” or something like that?  
> Or at least label each of the parts of “Introduction” as “subsections”?  
> Or maybe move “Definition of Authoring Tool” to “section” level”?
> 
> The purpose is to avoid confusion to the reader by repeated use of “This 
> section” within a “section”?
> 
>  
> 
> Requirement 7 says:
> 
>  
> 
> “Use a consistent style for conformance requirements and explain how to 
> distinguish them.”
> 
>  
> 
> Do the “subsections?” of ATAG “Introduction” “section” have different 
> “styles” to meet this requirement?
> 
> Does ATAG as a whole use different styles to distinguish “normative” 
> from “informative” content?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks and best wishes
> 
> Tim Boland NIST
> 
>  
> 
> PS – It may be useful to evaluate ATAG against References [1] and [2]  
> in general..
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> [1]: W3C Manual of Style:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
> 
>  
> 
> [2]: W3C PubRules:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
> 
>  
> 
> [3]: W3C QA Framework Specification Guidelines Good Practice 2:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#norm-informative-gp
> 
>  
> 
> [4]: W3C QA Framework Specification Guidelines Requirement 7:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#consistent-style-principle
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 13:11:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC