Re: Using the terms "normative" and "informative" in EO documents

i think we have to distinguish between the documents and there is no 
general rule to apply.

eg.
* Overview of WCAG 2.0 Document

   i would probably structure the lists by their normative / informative
   character and purpose: Web standard (normative), Supporting technical
   materials (informative) and Additional information (informative) ...
   you can also add notes about the stability or possible changes of
   documents.

* How to Update Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0

   i would not overload the document with this information but just refer
   to the documents overview for information about status and role of the
   documents.

i like the idea of a sidebar for this kind of meta-information in 
certain documents, telling the user about eg status, role, stability and 
maybe even target group.

just my 2 cents,
michael

Shawn Henry wrote:
> 
> EOWG and others who want to comment,
> 
> Question for discussion on the EOWG mailing list:
> How much should we use the terms "normative" and "informative" in our 
> basic introductory, education, and outreach material related to WCAG and 
> the other WAI technical specifications? Is it good to introduce and 
> reinforce these terms, which are used in the technical documents, in our 
> basic material? Or is it unnecessary to complicate the our basic 
> material with what is to some jargony terminology?
> 
> (Note that WCAG 2.0 itself provides definitions of the terms.)
> 
> Background:
> 
> Last week in discussing "How to Update Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to 
> WCAG 2.0", we considered adding these terms in: "The WCAG 2.0 technical 
> standard itself is a stable, normative document that will not change 
> once it is completed. However, Understanding WCAG 2.0 and Techniques for 
> WCAG 2.0 are supporting informative resources that can be updated. As 
> technology develops, they will be enhanced with additional tips, 
> techniques, and best practices." See the next-to-last paragraph in 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/transition1to2-20081121.html> 
> for how it's formatted and linked.
> 
> Here's an example of not using the actual terms: "Thus with WCAG 2.0, 
> there are extensive supporting materials, which are advisory documents. 
> The WCAG 2.0 guidelines document itself is the only document intended to 
> be a Web standard..." - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq#docs>
> 
> There are several places where we talk about the different types of 
> documents, for example:
> * Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents (old draft) 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php>
> * The WCAG 2.0 Documents (old draft) 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag20-docs
> * How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process: 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process.php>
> * WAI-ARIA Overview <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.php>
> 
> Your thoughts on whether or not we should use "normative" and 
> "informative" in some of these types of EO documents? If some but not 
> all, which?
> 
> Regards,
> ~Shawn
> 
> -----
> Shawn Lawton Henry
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
> phone: +1.617.395.7664
> about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Michael Stenitzer | WIENFLUSS information.design.solutions
www.wienfluss.net | proschkogasse 1/5 | wien06at
fon +43 650 9358770 | fax  +43 1 23680199

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 19:54:16 UTC