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 12:53:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D49A9@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Matt is a careful writer and I am not a casual reader.  Still, I misunderstood what Matt was saying, and my error was reasonable enough that Matt took the time to clarify.  With the benefit of hindsight, one can see from the top posted message below that Matt wrote exactly what he meant the first time.  I am biased, but I don’t think it is entirely fair to blame the confusion on *me* (and I just absolved Matt).
This is prima ficia evidence that the current use of the term guideline in WCAG2 is going to cause significant confusion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt May [mailto:mcmay@bestkungfu.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:05 PM
To: Bailey, Bruce
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Validity as a technique

What I mean is that I'd be comfortable if the main WCAG 2 document did not contain mention of HTML validity at the principle, guideline or success criterion level, but did appear in the techniques document. 


On Nov 7, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Bailey, Bruce wrote:

Please forgive my peevishness here...

> Omitting HTML validity at the guideline level would be acceptable to me.

Did you mean guideline level or SC level?  I missed the guideline referencing validity, so now I am worried.

> I think the language already in the guidelines document is sufficient guidance.

By “guidelines document” do you mean WCAG 2 working draft or the supplement techniques documents used for guidance?
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 17:54:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC