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

Re: Terminology revisited

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009150410580.1650-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes, you have captured my proposal accurately.

In the wide scheme of things I agree that the terminology is of little
consequence so long as it is used consistently. Which for me includes doing
so across different versions, unless there is some very strong reason to
change. I do not see that we need to change to strategies - not every
checkpoint is applicable to every situation now, nor ever will be. (For
example look at the checklist).

Charles McCN

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Jason White wrote:

  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.
  
  

-- 
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, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 04:13:05 GMT

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