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

RE: Definitions

From: Dick Brown <dickb@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:44:08 -0700
Message-ID: <7D6F5C23B8944046BC8D1DDED0ED15E01DA6D4@red-pt-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Marti <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>, Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think a central glossary is an excellent idea. If it isn't appropriate for
the EO to do it, perhaps the groups should work on it together (with
glossary subcommittees or whatever).

Dick Brown
Program Manager, Web Accessibility
Microsoft Corp.
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] 
Sent:	Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:17 PM
To:	Wendy A Chisholm
Cc:	Gregory J. Rosmaita; Marti; Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines
Mailing List
Subject:	Re: Definitions

Actually, I think that technical definitions for use in the guidelines
groups
should be handled by those groups, rather than EO.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  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
  /--
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 18:44:59 GMT

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