Re: Merging sections 2 and 3

Jan Richards wrote:

> Basically, structure is desirable in a document when real difference
> exist. It helps accessibility and understandability and I think it is
> necessary in this instance.

The way we dealt with this was in the Introductory text.
The WCAG was first organized into three parts, then two:
(1) graceful transformation and (2) navigation and comprehension. 
Rather than break the guidelines into two sections, we simply
described the two topics in the introduction and made the guidelines
a single list. Why have I liked this?

1) There used to be two introductory sections, at the beginning
  of each set of guidelines. By pulling out the introductory text,
  we make that information easier to access for those who want it
  and easier to skip for those who want to get right at the guidelines.

2) I have found using a single list much more straightforward than
   two separate lists. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter
   to me that guideline 3 is in the "graceful transformation" half
   of the guidelines. The association is lost to me as I actually use
the
   guidelines because it doesn't matter at that level. What does
   matter is the guideline text, rationale, and checkpoints. 
  
Thus, as you say, structure is important when differences exist.
However, I don't think that in this case the structure should
be reflected by the table of contents. 

Being able to refer to a guideline by a simple integer is
very useful. Of course, the guidelines could be numbered 
1 - 20 with 1 to 10 in Section 2 and 11 to 20 in Section 3 
(or whatever section numbers), but I still think the division
is unnecessary in the table of contents. 

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Telephone May 1999 only:     (212) 688-4489
Cell phone May 1999:         (917) 450-8783
Otherwise Tel/Fax:           (212) 684-1814

Received on Thursday, 6 May 1999 15:30:46 UTC