Re: last call and techniques

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> One of the things we should have before wego to last call is a good set of
> techniques. These need to be both general abstracted principles which are
> explained, rather than listed for verification, and specific examples of how
> it might be done, which of course makes all sorts of a ssumptions about user
> interfaces etc. That is not a problem, so long as those assumptions are clear
> from teh technique text, since the techniques do not have to be implemented,
> but are merely provided in a separate document as further guideance to
> developers wishing to implement the checkpoints and looking for ideas, or for
> several different explanations in order to better understand the checkpoint.
> 
> One of the questions that we might want to answer is whether the techniques
> are satisfactory as a list of points, or whether we should be trying to
> create a more flowing prose framework for them. Alternatively we can let the
> document go to the wider review audience of a last call and see if it is
> raised as an issue.

Charles,

Unfortunately, we don't have much data back about whether people
like/find useful the WCAG Techniques document. I think that the
document needs to be readable on its own, which to me implies that
some wrapper prose is necessary.

How to get this done? Should the editors generate prose? The Working
Group?

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 1999 11:48:31 UTC