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

Re: Comments and edits for the DRAFT WCAG 2.0

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008142213570.18123-100000@tux.w3.org>
I have no problem with the principles being academic, but I think we should
try to express them in language that is a bit closer to what people speak.


On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  GV:: "my first point is that many of our principles are way too
  WL: I had hoped that would be the idea. They will almost always be in
  the context of having Guidelines and Checkpoints associated with them
  but they furnish a "lofty" view of what we're about. I seem to remember
  the words "abstract" and "general" - which almost demands "academic".
  I have no quarrel with all the rest of the (mostly
  editorial/wordsmithing issues) comments in Gregg's post. But please
  let's let the prinicples be Principles. They can say it in general
  enough terms (and abstractly enough) that they might even resound. I
  believe their brevity (and IMO clarity) trumps any complaints about
  "academic" leading to a turn-off. The casual reader (whatever that is in
  this case!) only has to look down one more line and be in a "real world"
  description of the "how" and even a bit of "what".

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 Monday, 14 August 2000 22:14:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC