Re: How much room do we have in "describing how to apply" [was Re: examples of sets of documents]

Gregg,

On 9/13/2012 3:13 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> <PK> Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.  The constraint is in the 
>> limitations we are placing on ourselves in "describing how to 
>> apply".  Based I believe primarily on statements from Gregg (who is 
>> arguably our best authority here, given that he is a WCAG WG 
>> co-chair), we are not to do more than single word or phrase 
>> replacements in our "describing how to apply" work.  That constraint 
>> isn't found in such wording in our charter.
>
> <GV> I'm not sure where the "we are not to do more than single word or 
> phrase replacements in our "describing how to apply" work. / " / came 
> from but it was not from me.
>
> And we have done more that that of course, in multiple places, where 
> it was needed and or helpful.
>

<PK2> I guess I'm not clear as to what the precise constraints are.

Multiple times I have suggested we look at INTENT and the purpose of a 
given challenging SC, and apply (or perhaps to better use Alex's term, 
"interpret") that in the software context in ways that change more 
things than terms like "web page".

For example, for 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, I looked at the larger challenge 
of which repeated blocks was the common web page instance, and suggested 
this should apply to software by allowing effective ways to navigate to 
the content region and other key parts of the UI.  But I did so using a 
lot of text, and our successive iterations got bogged down into precise 
analogs of "blocks of content" and finding a substitution for "on 
multiple Web pages" to allow us to do what we (many of us) wanted to do: 
address the /issue /in the software context that the web language was 
addressing more explicitly & precisely for web content.

So... given your statement above Gregg, I don't feel I understand what 
your bright line is of what you feel we can do (beyond direct 
substitution for terms & addition of explanation/notes), and what you 
feel we cannot (which I recall basically as being "cannot write new 
SCs").  Mind you, I'm not arguing for us to write generic SCs for 
software.  BUT... where we are continuing to run into difficulty, I - 
yet again - suggest we need to consider doing something differently than 
we are doing.


Peter

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment