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

Re: Terminology revisited

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:07:33 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:31 PM 9/15/00 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>4. William: it is of little consequence which terminology is chosen, so
>long as it is used consistently

WL: As a further "introduction of chaos" I would submit that we call the 
technology-specific items "examples" so as to differentiate them from the 
layer called "checkpoints" (which might be called "requirements"). The 
latter are in fact what the people come to discover - what *must* I do?

In summary my position (to which I have no emotional attachment - a rose by 
any other name and all that) is:

There be a set of "principles" which is a convenient (albeit arbitrary) 
means of grouping the concepts involved in providing inclusion so that we 
may accomplish the *real* "overarching" goal: "everyone, everything connected";

There be a set of "guidelines" which although their devilish details 
informed the choices as to what constituted the principles, are grouped 

There be a set of "techniques" which are still *fairly* abstract but 
explain what sorts of things one should/must do;

There be a set of checkpoints that actually define how one tells if one has 
filled the requirements;

There be a set of "examples" which constantly drift with the tides of 
technology and actually inform any readers as to recipes for instituting 
the necessaries.

The argument as to whether there be specified ordinality (couldn't bring 
myself to just say "numbering") may rage on but whether the "principles" 
are considered merely introductions to groupings of guidelines or a more 
normative layer of more-or-less unchanging, well *principles*, or are a 
numbered set of collecting nexi for the underlayment mattereth little, IMHO 
- probably resolved by giving them huge Roman Numerals.

The guidelines' numbers would be unlike those in WCAG 1 in that they would 
have the form "X.x" instead of just a sequence of n ordinals. I believe we 
have increased the number of guidelines from the 14 in WCAG 1 to 26 in the 
version at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ and 24 in Jason's revised 
version in his 9/9/00 email.

I'm fairly certain (I'm laying 7:5 for) this number will change. In short 
if we are debating whether to use one or another numbering arrangement, 
let's just stop and take a vote. That way we can get on with what we must 
do: make a new, improved document.

If anyone is drawing a line in the sand about this let that be known now. I 
am not. In fact I think this is a fairly trivial matter and should be 
resolved forthwith.

Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:06:09 UTC

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