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

RE: Terminology revisited

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:07:32 -0700
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC216225557C7@SARUMAN>
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
In general, I'm in the "call it whatever you want as long as you keep it
consistent" camp, and agree with Charles's desire to keep the same terms
across versions.  

That said, I'm not especially fond of the term "technique" or "example" for
the technology specific documentation.  Both of these sound like suplemental
material to me, and the technology specific stuff is (IMHO) the core of the
document.  I know we decided to table the discussion of which pieces are
normative, but I think that part of my objection to these terms is that they
sound non-normative.

We have been contemplating introducing a new beast to the menagerie, which
is a normative, technology-specific document-thingy (so-called to avoid the
naming controversy, and henceforth refered to as a DT). The DT is not the
same as the current techniques, which are supplemental example material.
The DT should be specific, technical, normative, testable, and current. If
we create the DT (and I hope we do) it needs to have a unique name to avoid
confusion with the WCAG 1.0 "technique".

--Cynthia

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 5:22 AM
To: William Loughborough
Cc: Jason White; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject: Re: Terminology revisited


On the one hand I agree that this is hardly the most important question we
are going to face this week. On the other hand, I find it difficult to
understand why we would change the terminology, and confusing when I am
trying to discuss the different versions (especially outside this group, for

example giving presentations).

So my line in the sand ius that we should use the old terminology.

I think we have come from 14 guidelines and 68 checkpoints to about half a
dozen guidelines and about 25 checkpoints, and that somewhere around those
numbers is a much better place to be.

I agree that we need a layer of examples, and of techniques for meeting the
checkpoints with respect to a given technology or situation (as I wrote
earlier, we will never have a situation where all
checkpoints/requirements/wkrstfgs are relevant to all situations), and that
they need to be fluid, and developed as the technology develops.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  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.
  
  --
  Love.
                   ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  

-- 
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 15:05:38 GMT

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