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: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:23:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A48C066.70106@utoronto.ca>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
If we decide to move "Definition of authoring tool" to the Conformance 
section I think we should add a new note to the three that already exist 
in the first part of the introduction, saying something like:

For information on what types of applications qualify as "authoring 
tools", see the *"Definition of authoring tool"*.

@@with *Definition of authoring tool* linking down to the new location 
of that text@@


Cheers,
Jan









Jan Richards wrote:
> 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 13:24:28 UTC

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