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

RE: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE.

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 22:57:05 -0400
Message-Id: <200108210040.UAA6216035@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:38 PM 2001-08-20 , Charles F. Munat wrote:
>(I've shortened the subject because I was beginning to feel too serious.)
>
[...]
>I reply:
>
>So if I read you correctly, instead of this:
>
>Author
> Functional area
> Functional area
>User
> Functional area
> Functional area
> Functional area
>Content
> Functional area
>
>You suggest this:
>
>Functional area 1
> Author/User/Content
>Functional area 2
> Author/User/Content
>
>Is this correct?
>

AG:: Yes, that's the general idea.  

I am tempted in retrospect to retrofit 'problem area' for 'functional area' in
the second structure, though.  There was in the concept an element of scoping
down to some problems we know we didn't really solve on the first pass, as
opposed to coming up with a full replacement for the first round documents.

"functional thread" is kneejerk jargon from my systems engineering
background. 
The tasking for the individual teams might not start off wht a scope stated in
terms of what function was to be supported by their work, rather that they
were
to define an end-to-end tube of stuff that was as small as they could make it
and still embrace everything we needed to change to solve their assigned
problem.  This may be detail far below the level of your question, though.

Al

>Chas. Munat
>  
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 20:40:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT