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

RE: John's proposed wording for Principle 4

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:20:08 -0500
Message-Id: <43vti0$f1db85@mxip04a.cluster1.charter.net>
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

A couple things I remember from the discussion were


1   Writing principles as imperatives confuses them with guidelines that are
imperatives. 

2  Principles usually are not worded as commands.

Anybody remember other points?

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:50 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: John's proposed wording for Principle 4


What happened to the original idea that all principles should be written as
imperatives? We decided that success criteria couldn't be imperatives, but
principles could.

"Robust" seems as good a word as any for principle 4 - "Design content to be
robust" or "technologically robust" or "interoperable" or "for
interoperability".
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 05:21:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT