Re: Gateway Techniques draft: responses to two editorial notes

Hello John,

>Editorial Note:The use of "clearly" and "concisely" makes this untestable. 
>Will that be an issue for readers?
>[js: I hope not-- the idea here is to provide guidance that helps people 
>understand what they need to do. We could add a note saying that clarity 
>and concision require human judgment, and that such judgment should be 
>informed by at least informal feedback from users, or at best by formal 
>user testing.]

WAC: My intent with this note was to get feedback from people about what 
they expected to see at the gateway level.  Thus, I'm tempted to leave the 
note as it is and see if we get any responses. Thoughts?

>Editorial Note: In this draft, part C of the Level 1 success criterion for 
>Guideline 1.1 is divided into two techniques this one (music without words)
>and the next (visual art). Is this confusing? Should they merge into one?
>[js: I think it would be more confusing to treat the tasks of describing 
>non-vocal audio and visual art somewhat differently-- the descriptive 
>techniques and vocabularies are very different, and so is the issue of 
>what gets "displayed," since you can't "display" audio. We may need to add 
>a note to this effect.]

I interpret this as, "keep the two techniques separate because the 
strategies and vocabularies are different."  Is that what you intended or 
were you aiming for something else?

Best,
--wendy

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 15:12:19 UTC