Re: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.

Hi Anna,

I think the purpose of the guidelines is to be an unambiguous 
specification of a standard.  While it is tempting to include 
informative expositions within the document, this kind of 
integration creates a blur between what is normative stardard 
language and what is informative exposition.  People soon quote 
informative explanations as if they were the standard.  This 
since the entire Understanding and Techniques documents are 
informative then any quote from those documents will not be 
confused for standard language.  I think that is the reason.  We 
should ask Shawn this week.  She is part of both groups.

Well Shawn, I guess that give you some homework for Friday.

Wayne



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com>
To: <wed@csulb.edu>; <shawn@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 
Documents.



 Hello Wayne,

Interesting reading -:) I totally agree with you that as long as 
a
document is well organized it is easy to read it as a whole or in 
parts.
Now. If "guidelines" is not an easy read and someone has to 
switch to
"understanding" document, what is the point of the whole 
exercise? Why
on earth to write a document (I mean "guidelines") that is hard 
to read
without supporting material? With the same tree structure all 
three docs
can be combined in an easy way in the same tree structure:
1. Guideline
1.1 Understanding this guideline
1.2 Success criteria
1.2.n Success criterion n
1.2.n.1 Understanding this success criterion
1.2.n.2 Technique(s) for this criterion

When everything is bundled in a single "book" one can read it to 
the
desired level of details. WCAG documents is not a fiction and a
technical specification needs to be as long as it has to be for
implementors to understand the thing. Well, noone is going to 
combine 3
docs into one and those 3 docs will remain uneasy reading.

Anna


>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
>[mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Wayne Dick
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:47 AM
>To: Shawn Henry; EOWG (E-mail)
>Subject: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.
>
>
>Hi Group,
>
>I have always been confused  about the complaint over document
>length.  WCAG 2.0 Guidelines are short and to the point, and I
>never though of reading Understanding or the Techniques from
>end to end.  So, I wrote this response to criticism of
>excessive length.
>
>http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/public/WCAG20/WCAG2Depth.html
>
>Please comment, and when you are done, I'll post it on the blog.
>
>Wayne
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 07:58:59 UTC