RE: Definitions

Dan Brickley was playing with an inteface to WordNet.  What is the
structure of WordNet?  Could we play?

I agree we would need a single point of contact between us (WAI) and them
(WordNet) but this is an editor slash database administrator for our patch
of funny words.

Al

At 03:44 PM 2000-06-06 -0700, Dick Brown wrote:
>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 22:25:51 UTC