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

Re: Comments on 26 July 2000 WCAG 2.0 Draft

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:24:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3998556E.62898147@gorge.net>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
IJ:: "I don't think it's a good idea to redefine the terms Guidelines
and Checkpoints. I think doing so will create confusion and I don't
understand why it's necessary."

WL: I don't think the terms got redefined (because it would create
confusion and is not necessary).

IJ:: "Principles are nice, and they can help convey a model, but I don't
think that they are any more than further organization."

WL: So? Further organization might be helpful. The guidelines that
reflect adherence to the principles are still guidelines. The
checkpoints that illuminate/define the guidelines are still checkpoints.
Etc.

IMO (not so humble) the Principles are a nice way to be more general and
abstract - to speak to the what/why of the matter and leave the how for
Guidelines/Checkpoints. This avoids casting the document in terms of
technologies, rather in terms of human needs. Maybe they need to be
engraved in marble or something, but they need to be there to guide
creation of guidelines and other more mundane implementations of
whatever the purpose of all this is: making the Web accessible to
*everyone*.

In the past we've tended to deal with specifics before making it
absolutely clear what the underlying principles were - at least that's
how I've seen it.



-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 16:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT