W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria

From: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:53:38 -0600
Message-ID: <2FECE9363D811B418C3F282834F172A56DBE53@sundance>
To: "'Joe Clark '" <joeclark@contenu.nu>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org '" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
 
Joe Clark wrote:
JC These lists of highly specific defined terms and cases are ridiculous 
and entirely unhelpful. If you demand illustrations, "concrete 
concepts" (an oxymoron) are not the only thing requiring illustration.

The entire enterprise of selecting just these terms here and there as 
a focus, and the even more risible attempts to define them, bring the 
Guidelines into disrepute. It is absurd to provide this level of 
specificity.

Joel Sanda
JS Well ... what good is a checklist if it isn't specific? You can't "check"
items on a "list" if they're not there. When you make a shopping list do you
say "dairy", "grain", and "protein"? When you plan a vacation do you say
"Western Hemisphere"? When you write a book about web accessibility and
don't give "highly specific defined terms and cases" will anyone be able to
use it if it is a generalized description of ill-defined terms and ideas?

Concepts can be clearly defined and self-evident (like
"obsessif-curmudgeon") or they can be not clearly defined and not
self-evident (like "dermatology fetishist"). A concrete concept is one that
leaves little doubt as to its meaning and purpose. Another illustration: the
concept "journalist". Why that could mean just about anyone with a pencil
and paper or keyboard and modem these days. 

JC: If I write about "Vasoline" by the Stone Temple Pilots, do I have to 
provide a 3 MB MP3 of that song on my piddling little server with its 
piddling little bandwidth?

JS: No, and I think I took care of that sort of interpretation when I
suggested the guidelines instruct the developer to ensure the additional
non-text element contribute to the understanding of the material. For
example, adding a picture to illustrate the phrase "dermatology fetishist"
would probably interest more people than a picture illustrating the phrase
"obsessif-curmudgeon".

JC: I mean, it's a sound, right?
JS: Yes, it is, but it's other things, as well. A bunch of words in a book
doesn't make it a book - it's just a bunch of words, right?

JC: you'll be telling us "When referencing cuisine, prepare actual 
food for tasting."
JS: Actually, I'd suggest a picture. However, if you're roasting wild pig on
the beach with a bunch of boisterous people partying a sound clip of the
event may also be pleasing to the listener. Depending upon who is doing the
talking, of course.
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 16:53:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT