- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:47:22 -0500
- To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- CC: Markku Hakkinen <mhakkinen@acm.org>, Jan Richards <jrichards@ocad.ca>, UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I also agreed that the summary is a different animal than the rationale. Perhaps the summary belongs only in the Implementation document, since that is our non-normative explanatory document. Please note that I did add the sentence Greg suggested from ATAG stating that the success criteria and notes were normative, so that the summaries would not be considered normative. On 11/29/2010 8:08 PM, Greg Lowney wrote: > Regarding the Summaries paragraphs... > > Jan and Mark, the Rationale paragraphs that ATAG2 uses for guidelines > seem equivalent to the Intent paragraphs that UAAG2's Implementing > document uses for success criteria; are you suggesting something like > the latter should be copied into our main document? > > Both the Rationale and Intent paragraphs seem very different from the > Summary paragraphs, whose goal is not to explain why a /guideline/ was > included, but rather to provide a concise, non-technical description of > its /success criteria/ and how they fit together. The original > introduction is at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0007.html.
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:47:49 UTC