W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: BIG ISSUE -- TAKE 2 on WEB UNIT - RATIONALE

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 06:17:57 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001a01c62d72$de369ac0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
A few people thought of just using Web Page.  We did too.   Here was our
thinking. 

 

The problem:

We want to make our guidelines readable and future looking or future
resilient at the same time. 

 

 

Most web units today are web pages.

If we used web page and put quotation marks around "page" it would signal
that we didn't necessarily mean a page

   We could then create a definition (that looked just like the definition
of web unit) that covered

   The page and other units.

 

This would make the guidelines much easier to read and understand.

It would require that the user read the definition and remember the
distinction.

 

In the end we decided it was better to coin a new term and get people
thinking about the future as the consider the guidelines.

-  Also better to have people who are not writing 'pages' know that the
guidelines apply to them (and were written with them in mind as well)
without having to read the definition and stretch the word   "page' to cover
their material.

-  Also doesn't instantiate the term "web page' to refer to other content
for all time

- Also makes it clearer that all resources that are intended to be linked to
directly should meet the guidelines.  Not just pages. 

 

So we went with Web Unit instead of Web "Page"  even though that is easier
to read.   It just seemed more accurate and less of a patch.  Also it didn't
mislead people for simplicity.

 

 

Comments welcome. 

 
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:18:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT