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

RE: Definitions

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0006070734480.27992-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think wodnet serves the requirements of defining the terms we use in
our specifications, and ensuring that they are used consistently. (Althugh it
does lots of other neat things.) And we don't have enough of these terms (I
hope) to require any real network of meanings.

I think that is more editorial, and requires some careful thought and work
from the working groups and the editors of the specs themselves (which is
also why I don't think we should ask EO to do it).

cheers

Charles McCN

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Al Gilman wrote:

  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 
  > 
  

--
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 Wednesday, 7 June 2000 07:38:33 GMT

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