W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: Possible format for techniques Doc.doc

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:45:25 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7ADF75@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Jason wrote:
<blockquote>
Take a single techniques document. It contains a list of techniques
(required and, if we so decide, advisory) related to each success
criterion. One way of ordering these is by success criterion. Another
way is by the features of the language used, for example the different
parts of the HTML spec that deal with block and inline structures,
forms, multimedia, etc. The main question then is whether the techniques
can be so drafted that they make sense in both orderings.
</blockquote>

Hmmm. I hadn't understood the difference between Reference and
Application sections quite this way. I had understood the Reference
section much as you describe it, but I had thought the Application
section would be focused on apply the techniques in various desin
scenarios, such as trying to create an accessible form or a complex
table, or designing a navigation scheme, and so forth. The idea would be
to appeal to task-oriented developers and designers who come to WCAG
seeking guidance about how to accomplish some specific task in a
conforming way. I think this might make it more difficult to write
technology specific techniques in a way that lends itself readily to
both orderings.

Jason added:
<blockquote>
For the general techniques this might be problematic as there aren't any
tasks or language features involved; rather, the general techniques
serve to complete the technology-specifics by providing those techniques
that would otherwise be repeated in each technology-specific document,
because they are independent of the implementation technologies.
</blockquote>
Hmmm again. I'm not sure why you say there aren't any tasks involved in
the General Techniques.

I have been trying to see the General Techniques not just as a
repository for techniques that would otherwise have to be repeated in
each technology-specific document, but also as a place to frame the
problem: what is the accessibility problem to be solved here? What is
the approach that developers might take in addressing that problem? What
tasks must they accomplish no matter what technology they're using?
(Examples include writing text alternatives, thinking hard about what's
"structure" and what's "presentation," planning a consistent design,
etc.)

So maybe General Techniques shapes up as the introductory part of the
Applications section?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:59 PM
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Possible format for techniques Doc.doc



On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John M Slatin wrote:

>
> It's also a little daunting! I say that because it sounds like these
are
> actually two separate documents, each one pretty large in its own
right
> (I'm seeing a heavy book in my mind's eye). And I'm not sure I
> understand how they relate to what's presently in the
> Technology-specific or the General Techniques docs.

Take a single techniques document. It contains a list of techniques
(required and, if we so decide, advisory) related to each success
criterion. One way of ordering these is by success criterion. Another
way
is by the features of the language used, for example the different parts
of the HTML spec that deal with block and inline structures, forms,
multimedia, etc. The main question then is whether the techniques can be
so drafted that they make sense in both orderings.

For the general techniques this might be problematic as there aren't any
tasks or language features involved; rather, the general techniques
serve
to complete the technology-specifics by providing those techniques that
would otherwise be repeated in each technology-specific document,
because
they are independent of the implementation technologies.

What do you think? Does this help to solidify the proposal?
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 17:45:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:36 GMT