W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > December 2013

core functionality (was Re: [wbs] response to 'Approval for draft publication of WCAG-EM')

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:41:06 +0100
Message-ID: <52AED8C2.3030406@w3.org>
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
CC: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org, e.velleman@accessibility.nl, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

Thank you for your helpful comments on the recent WCAG-EM Editor Draft.

We are currently processing the comments. You raised a concern about the 
term "core functionality" that Eval TF seemed to agree with during the 
previous call [1]. However, the proposed terms "dependent components" or 
"dependent functionality" are too cryptic and we are concerned that they 
would not be understood by most readers.

This has been a recurring issue for a while. We debated several terms 
such as "common functionality", "critical functionality", "essential 
functionality", until we ended with "core functionality".

We are wondering if you have further suggestions for terms that would 
imply less subjectivity and are yet understandable (and translatable)?

Regards,
   Shadi


On 13.12.2013 22:36, WBS Mailer on behalf of gv@trace.wisc.edu wrote:
> UNDER TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
> ====================
>
> I understand the purpose  of the term "core functionality" but its use
> bothers me very much, since it has been abused so completely in every other
> domain of accessibility.  For the W3C to define or endose the term is
> extremely troubling.
>
> I would advise talking about  "High Frequency pages" -- and "Pages needed
> to complete processes".    And woud really speak against the use of the
> term CORE.   It is not needed,  and it is extraodinarily dangerous - both
> for web page evaluation and dangerous to accessibilty overall.
>
> <this is the only show stopper problem with this section. >
>
> < SEE " STEP 2" question below for a resolution to this issue - involving
> the use of a different term.  For example   DEPENDENT COMPONENTS.
>
> The definition here would be
>
> DEPENDENT COMPONENTS
> COMPONENTS of a website that, if removed, fundamentally changes the use,
> purpose, OR FUNCTIONALITY of the website for users. This includes
> information that users of a website refer to and tasks that they carry out
> to perform this functionality.
> Note: Examples of functionality include "selecting and purchasing a product
> from the shop area of the website", "filling and submitting the form
> provided on the website", and "registering for an account on the website".
> Note: Other PARTS OF THE WEBSITE ARE not excluded from the scope of
> evaluation. The term "DEPENDENT COMPONENTS" is intended to help identify
> critical web pages and include them among others in an evaluation.
>
> (one COULD use DEPENDENT FUNCTIONALITY if "components" causes problems but
> DEPENDENT COMPONENTS is better for a number of reasons).   But CORE isn't
> really correct and is quite dangerous.

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 10:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:55:24 UTC