W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Definitions

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:38:04 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000606173428.00c77e50@localhost>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, "Marti" <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>
Cc: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello,

I apologize for not responding to this sooner, but the first time I read 
this I thought, "yes. sure. the WCAG should have a better glossary."  After 
rereading the proposal, I am wondering if the terms should be defined 
across the WAI working groups and would therefore be an EO piece.  It would 
be something that all of the groups would point to, a central glossary or 
information piece. Something along the lines of the draft started by EO 
called, "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" found at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/profiles-19990930.html

--wendy

At 07:10 PM 4/27/00 , Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, marti!
>
>your point is quite well taken -- if we have learned anything from the CD 
>discussion on this list, it is that in order to move forward, we must 
>first define what it is we are attempting to accomplish and for whom, in 
>the hopes that it will lead us to the how...
>
>work on a more extensive and robust glossary needs to be pushed up the 
>agenda slash deliverables chain...
>
>gregory.
>
>At 05:56 PM 4/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>I had to jump off the line quickly but I did want to say that both our
>>discussion and various 'user' comments I have encountered recently point to
>>a real need to look at and modify the glossary.
>>User comments I have heard recently range from "Huh!" to "could you please
>>put that in English".
>>Our group also seems to spend a fair amount of time and effort just agreeing
>>on terms. Perhaps the real starting point is not
>>Guidelines/Checkpoints/Techniques but Terms.
>>(I recently spoke to a group of 'web designers' that had no idea what was
>>meant by structural element markup - they actually thought that <h1> etc.
>>was there to easily adjust fonts because that is what they has been told by
>>'instructors')
>>Maybe we should have some suggested 'prerequiste reading' or link all terms
>>to an expanded glossary.
>>Marti

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 17:31:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT