W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Minority opinons

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:34:14 -0400
Message-ID: <39E66696.4A342558@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> I apologize for the late hit, here.  I know this was discussed in the group
> and
> I did not participate.  On the other hand, Jon raised this as an example of
> guidelines language that should be aligned across the various guidelines, and
> that reminded me to check what you have actually done.
> 
> The "equivalent vs. equivalency target" definitions in this volume are not the
> same definition of "equivalent" as in math, English or the WCAG and the math,
> English and WCAG sense is appropriate in this context, and the usage currently
> in the draft is not.

Agreed. Dan Connolly made a similar remark to me. And I think
Eric chose "equivalency target" for consistency with "text equivalent"
from WCAG.

So by using "equivalent" without symmetry, we've lost from the
start. The question now is: do we complete the trio with the
same terminology, or break and find something else?

 _ Ian
 
> The purity of the symmetry of equivalence relationships, which is one of their
> standard properties, should be exploited in sending our message.  It is
> important to the principles that we should be supporting across all the
> guidelines.  This is to say, it is important that the peernes of any
> equivalence groups be reflected in our language.
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0416.html>http:/
> /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0416.html
> 
> The current language (in the 29 Sept. Draft) is just primary/alternate content
> under new labels.  Using a perfectly good English word to mean something else
> detracts from the clarity of our message, and using anything other than the
> standard meaning of equivalent in places such as Checkpoint 2.3 states the
> wrong requirement.
> 
> There is no need to go to Terms of Art to say what needs to be said in 2.3
> etc.  For example, one could rewrite 2.3 as follows:
> 
> Change to
> 
>    2.3 Where there are multiple fragments of content within a document which
> are equivalent in the senses that they convey the same information, closely or
> roughly; provide easy access to any equivalent among the range of
> equivalents.
> This shall be done through at least one of the following mechanisms: (1)
> allowing configuration to render one equivalent instead of another; (2)
> allowing configuration to render more than one equivalent; (3) allowing the
> user to a displayed equivalent and then inspect any equivalents of the
> selected
> item; (4) providing a direct link to another (each other) equivalent in
> content, just before or after a displayed equivalent in document order.
> [Priority 1]
> ...
> 
> >From [for reference]
> 
>    2.3 Provide easy access to each [167]equivalent and each
>           [168]equivalency target through at least one of the following
>           mechanisms: (1) allowing configuration to render the equivalent
>           instead of the equivalency target; (2) allowing configuration
>           to render the equivalent in addition to the equivalency target;
>           (3) allowing the user to select the equivalency target and then
>           inspect its equivalents; (4) providing a direct link to the
>           equivalent in content, just before or after the equivalency
>           target in document order. [Priority 1]
> 
> Al
> 
> At 03:21 PM 2000-10-12 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >Any minority opinion that a group member wishes to have documented and
> >included in the last call announcement needs to be sent to the list no
> >later than 18 October.  If you are planning to submit a minority opinion it
> >would please the chair and the editors to at least know the intention
> >before 18 October in the preparation of last call materials.
> >
> >Jon
> >Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> >Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> >Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> >MC-574
> >College of Applied Life Studies
> >University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> >1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
> >
> >Voice: (217) 244-5870
> >Fax: (217) 333-0248
> >
> >E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
> >
> >WWW: <http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund>http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> >WWW: <http://www.w3.org/wai/ua>http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 21:34:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT