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

 Henny et al,

It is getting interesting.

The way normative text is separated from informative is leveraged
(elsewhere) by following http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 

Now I hear that the normative guidelines are hard to read and
understanding those guidelines is a lot prettier document. Actually
understanding doc copies guidelines and then exposes them. This makes it
a complete document supported by techniques, Guidelines doc is a mere
extensive table of content with reference links. I now feel that reading
WCAG can well be replaced by reading the table of content of The
"Understanding..." doc. So to me now this is not a question whether it
is hard or easy to read WCAG, it is the question whether I need WCAG in
its currrent form or not. Understanding doc should be the WCAG doc: well
presented, well layed out, informative enough to read and containing all
the requirements.

OK, don't want to infuriate anyone so stopping here.

Anna

>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Henny Swan
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:20 AM
>To: William Loughborough
>Cc: EOWG
>Subject: Re: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.
>
>
>I have to agree with you here. The whole thing is not meant to 
>be read end-to-end but is designed to be referred to. That in 
>mind I think the Understanding document is excellent. It's the 
>main document I refer to because invariably I'm researching 
>error handling or headings and want everything in one easy 
>page with the rest of the document at hand but out of the way.
>
>It also looks a lot prettier and has a better layout than 
>other documents so it gets my vote all round.
>
>Great write up Wayne.
>
>Henny
>
>On 19 Nov 2008, at 08:13, William Loughborough wrote:
>
>> It's a bit like saying that the shop manual for an 
>automobile is "hard 
>> reading" or "too long."
>>
>> Hence Wayne's "The key misunderstanding here is that someone would 
>> ever need to read either document from end to end."
>>
>> This is totally a non-issue disguised as something that matters and 
>> Wayne's description of the process of *using* the documents rather 
>> than actually *reading* them is spot on.
>>
>> Love.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM, <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com> wrote:
>>  those 3 docs will remain uneasy reading.
>>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Henny Swan
>Web Evangelist
>Member of W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Education and 
>Outreach Group www.opera.com
>
>Blog: www.iheni.com
>
>Stay up to date with the Web Standards Curriculum www.opera.com/wsc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:55:51 UTC