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

RE: Guideline/Checkpoint "modifiers"

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:12:24 +0200
To: "'William Loughborough'" <love26@gorge.net>, "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401c043ce$73ce5580$eaa7003e@ndcil.com>
I think that we decided that it would all be one XML document, with
different renderings.
That way we can experiment on format and what goes with what questions,
without a rewrite, and based on user feedback.
L

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of William Loughborough
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:23 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Guideline/Checkpoint "modifiers"


We are in full agreement on the guidelines being the "what" of things; the
techniques being the "how". We have proposed the 'informative" materials
include the "why". We are less committed to the idea of having a "who is
covered" section (although there is a document to that effect). The
explanatory parts of the "what" sort of overlap the "why" and "how" parts
in many cases, but in almost all cases both these must be attended to. An
important inclusion with each Checkpoint is some discussion (or link to
appropriate resource) of how conformance will be determinable.

Someone using this document will be able to learn why a particular
checkpoint is in there, how to implement it, and how to tell whether one's
implementation conforms. All this of course is informative data not
necessarily (but possibly) in the actual guideline/techniques document.

In a sense the "readability" has a somewhat inverse relationship to the
"usability" in a rough way; If it gets more "understandable" when read
top-to-bottom (contains much of the "informative" material) it tends to be
less "usable" in that it starts to weigh more and stay on the shelf (remain
unloaded) more.

One "solution" to this is to have the normative document be cold/bare and
have a rich set of links not just to the techniques as in previous version,
but also to all of the explanatory text. This is, e.g., the strategy used
in http://rdf.pair.com/xchecker.htm (or http://rdf.pair.com/plain.htm if
you're put off by my garish color scheme) in which the checkpoints are
presented verbatim with links not only to techniques and occasional tools,
but also to the underlying guidelines. It's useless as a straight-through
read but very helpful if one would avoid the 2" thick document syndrome.
All of the information in the main "normative" and "informative" documents
is there - and a lot more through references to "outside" materials: but it
doesn't impose itself so much.

I submit this as a possible format of our 2.0 effort. At this time there is
almost no "informative" explanatory text (in the current draft) with the
checkpoints so a demonstration wouldn't show much, but as the explanations
proliferate (as is sure to happen with whatever "image text" turns into),
it will become imperative to maintain a check on "ponderosity". Without
excessive "tersification" we can still put the weighty (and non-normative)
materials in links that can be pulled in for those rare individuals who
want to read the whole five pounds in one "plateful".

Whether the group does this on the fly mattereth little because I will do
it anyway if for no other reason than my own convenience in dealing with
this stuff. In short I am positing that some of the complaints about
"readability" aren't about the editorial content but about the "usability"
of the document being negatively impacted by its format.

Whachallthink?

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 01:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:08 GMT