- From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:43:09 +1000
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 01:42:18AM +0200, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> Given all the miscommunication due to different uses of terminology, let's
> try to take extreme care with that terminology, especially in something like
> the Design Principles.
>
> For example (especially when listed together with "accessible" and
> "universal") what does "inclusive" mean? (Serious question. I don't know.)
> There's enough confusion and disagreement already on what "accessible" means.
I think the three terms were meant to be as wide-ranging and universally
applicable as possible, with built-in redundancy so as to communicate this in
spite of disagreements regarding the connotations of each.
Deletion of "inclusive" wouldn't make any substantive difference, given the
scope of the other two terms ("accessible" and "universal").
>
> Another is that we appear to have some agreement on "equivalent" referring to
> content, and "alternate" to the UI mechanism (and "fallback" to situations
> where the UA defaults to an equivalent that is not the author-suggested
> 'main' one). See also <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus
> #head-2d72a19043f78d471af365031ec3ab94fe62d1af>
This is reasonable terminology, noting however that WCAG 2.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag20/) now uses "alternative" rather than "equivalent"
to designate the content, as in the first of the above three senses.
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 02:43:23 UTC