W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: my action item from AUWG call 23 June 2009

From: Boland Jr., Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:23:07 -0400
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C493075032D346@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
Possibly, if they logically belong in the "conformance" section (relate to conformance).
Then upon first usage of "authoring tool" or "relationship to WCAG" in the ATAG draft you could link to their expanded text in the "conformance" section if readers want more information..?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Richards [mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:11 AM
To: Boland Jr., Frederick E.
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: my action item from AUWG call 23 June 2009

Hi Tim,

Would it help if we moved the two normative sections of the Introduction
down into the Conformance section which is already Normative?:

- Definition of authoring tool
- Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Cheers,
Jan




Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote:
> In response to my action item, I reviewed references [1], [2], and [3],
> and didn't notice anything specifically referring to mixing "normative"
> and "informative" within a "section", other than Good Practice 2 in [3]
> and Requirement 7 in [4].
>
>
>
> Good Practice 2 has as a technique:
>
>
>
> *"Techniques*
>
>    1. For each section in the specification:
>           * Determine if the content is normative or informative and
>             explicitly label it as either "normative" or "informative."
>
> "
>
> I'm not sure if the "Introduction" of the latest ATAG draft specifically
> meets this good practice.  I thought the "Introduction" part itself was
> a "section".  Then how can each of the parts within the "Introduction"
> be "sections"?   Are they "subsections" of "Introduction" section?  If
> so, then maybe they can be labeled as "subsections", with an explanatory
> sentence right after "Introduction" heading saying something like "The
> Introduction section is composed of the following subsections: .., which
> may have differing normativity designations " or something like that?
> Or at least label each of the parts of "Introduction" as "subsections"?
> Or maybe move "Definition of Authoring Tool" to "section" level"?
>
> The purpose is to avoid confusion to the reader by repeated use of "This
> section" within a "section"?
>
>
>
> Requirement 7 says:
>
>
>
> "Use a consistent style for conformance requirements and explain how to
> distinguish them."
>
>
>
> Do the "subsections?" of ATAG "Introduction" "section" have different
> "styles" to meet this requirement?
>
> Does ATAG as a whole use different styles to distinguish "normative"
> from "informative" content?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Tim Boland NIST
>
>
>
> PS - It may be useful to evaluate ATAG against References [1] and [2]
> in general..
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]: W3C Manual of Style:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
>
>
>
> [2]: W3C PubRules:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
>
>
>
> [3]: W3C QA Framework Specification Guidelines Good Practice 2:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#norm-informative-gp
>
>
>
> [4]: W3C QA Framework Specification Guidelines Requirement 7:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#consistent-style-principle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 13:23:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC