Re: last call and techniques

The major point I was trying to make is that there are cases where a
broad-based, abstract introduction is helpful, and others where a minutely
detailed example is the most use. Often different people will look for
different types of technique in the same checkpoint, so I think we need to
have them all. I am inclined to agree with Ian that we can add prose wrapping
after the last call (and I expect that part of monitoring the guidelines in a
post-recommendation phase will be to further refine the techniques based on
longer and more extensive implementation experience, even if the guidelines
themselves are perfect in version 1.0).

(I will write up the details of my meeting with the Amaya folks, and my
thoughts on the one checkpoint that seemed problematic)

Charles McCN

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  "Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote:
  > 
  > aloha, ian!
  
  Mahalo, Gregory, for that comment. It would suffice then to
  alert people that prose will be added after last call.
  
   - Ian
   
  > what we desperately need is the input of persons actually slash intimately
  > involved in the development process, which is why i am particularly interested
  > in dick brown's report on his action item -- viz, to show the techniques for
  > GLs 4 and 5 to FrontPage and Office team members, so as to solicit their
  > opinion...  we desperately need more of this type of review, and we need to
  > take advantage of those WG members (such as bruce roberts) who are actually
  > involved in the design and implementation of authoring tools...  we also need
  > to hear what the Amaya developers had to say to charles, vis a vis that tool's
  > conformance the AU GL, so as to fine-tune and strengthen not only the
  > techniques document, but so as to ensure that we haven't over-tersified the GL
  > before taking it to last call...
  > 
  > only after we get input from developers on the techniques, should we worry
  > about "wrapper prose",
  > gregory.
  > 
  > ian wrote to the AU GL list:
  > >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?
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
  > BIGOT, n.  One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an
  > opinion that you do not entertain.           -- Ambrose Bierce
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
  > Gregory J. Rosmaita  <unagi69@concentric.net>
  > Camera Obscura       <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
  > VICUG NYC            <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
  > Read 'Em & Speak     <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
  
  -- 
  Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 1999 16:47:39 UTC