Re: Merging sections 2 and 3

Jan Richards wrote:
> 
> IJ:
> >.......
> > 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.
> 
> I like the idea of integer numbered guidelines but I would like to see
> the intro text remain before the last three in order to provide the
> conceptual shift.

This is my point: no shift happens for readers. There is too much
information going past to remember that you just dealt
with 4 guidelines of type A then 6 of type B then 3 of type C.
The structural difference is lost as you read. 

In order to promote the structural difference, I think it
should be highlighted in a more compact way, which is
why I prefer an introduction with 2 or 3 parts to it. Plus,
if those parts appear in the table of contents, then the
distinction is captured in an even more compact way.

To the authors, the semantic distinction is obvious and
crucial to designing the entire document. To readers, my
experience (and that of people who tested the usability
of the WCAG) is that separate lists don't have
the effect that you seek.

 - 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 15:48:44 UTC