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

Jargon in WCAG2 (was RE: Validity as a technique)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:10:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D49A7@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>

> I hope this is somewhat less opaque.

Yes, that definition for "programmatically determined" is better than the one used in the glossary of the working draft I foisted upon my skilled and experienced colleague.  His initial objection was with the dense artificial vernacular being used continuously.  We have not yet discussed the document in detail, but each individual can only provide first impressions once.  I have used him up for this little experiment.

He tried the checklists first.  And was lost.  He specifically mentioned "programmatically determined" as an example of the needlessly difficult writing.

My close colleague has returned to full WCAG2 as I strongly warned him in the beginning would be necessary.  It is a slow go.  Allow me to recap:  I personally stressed how important it was to read the full WCAG2 from top to bottom to appreciate it.  He ignored my advice and direction and headed straight to the checklists.  Why would he do that?  Why would anyone?

I am not spoon feeding the WAI just my own intuitive best guess.  Who here is doing actual usability tests?  The public releases are clearly not generating sufficient feedback.  

Are the folks who wrote the Trace/IBM Access Dos manual still available?
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 17:10:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT