W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:33:11 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>, Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:12 AM 2/16/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I feel that it presupposes the existence of certain types of 
>"interpretative documents" which, to the best of my knowledge, either 
>don't exist or aren't acknowledged by the W3C.

However crude they may be, I have published two "interpretative documents"


the latter an ongoing parallel to the WCAG 2 effort.

There is no reason why there cannot be a proliferation of various levels of 
"keys to the guidelines". To do this in the document proper is IMO vain 
effort for the reasons Jason has cited. Just as there are millions of 
interpretations of "Great Books" so there can be more than one way of 
looking at the guidelines, but for there to be such "interpretive 
documents" there must be a *something* there to interpret.

Our debate is as to whether the actual root document can serve so well that 
it needs no further elucidation. As we write this thing we  trying to make 
it clear while keeping it precise and, but I don't believe it will ever get 
to the point where, if it's thorough/precise/+ it will not be greeted with 
the old "arrrrrrgh, it's huge/impenetrable/opaque/off-putting/+" complaints 
with which we are all too familiar.

Just saying it's not clear or well-written without proposing alternatives 
that are well-written and clear is something we have at least begun to avoid.

Opacity begets clarification!

Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 12:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC