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

Terminology revisited

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:31:06 +1100 (EST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10009151412390.18803-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
The question of which terminology to use in designating the different
types of requirements set forth in the guidelines document, remains
unresolved. This issue was introduced at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000JulSep/0200.html
but did not achieve resolution either on the mailing list or in the
subsequent meeting.

The following proposals have been advanced:

1. Charles: the three types of requirements should be called "guidelines",
"checkpoints" and "techniques", respectively. This usage has strong
historical roots in the development of the guidelines.

2. Wendy: they should be called "guidelines", "checkpoints" and
"technology-specific checkpoints" (or "technology-specific checks"),
respectively.

3. Gregg: the requirements in the middle layer should be called
"strategies" because not every requirement at this level will be
applicable to every technology or situation.

4. William: it is of little consequence which terminology is chosen, so
long as it is used consistently.

I hope that I have represented your stated positions accurately. Please
correct the above summary if it is inadequate.

For the sake of full disclosure:

5. Jason: I agree with William, at least for the moment and thus have no
strong preference for or against any of the proposals, though I appreciate
that each of their proponents has made important and valid points.

Comments and proposals are welcome as we need to reach consensus in
connection with this issue.
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2000 23:31:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT