Re: Baseline docs

I agree. One of the objectives of the document might be to explain why the  
WG didn't come up with a more descriptive word than "baseline". I get the  
impression that it was the first term anyone came up with, and that the  
task of finding a better word was put off until later, but it never  
happened. I would have thought that something like "technology profile"  
might be less confusing. Unfortunately the document spends so long on  
background that (with the document on paper) the explanation doesn't start  
until the middle of the second page.

I think the new jargon word needs to be explained up front, so people  
aren't kept guessing as they read the background. I would suggest putting  
a quick one-liner at the start, set off from the main text, like one  
sometimes sees a quote from a dictionary defining a word in a title.

Regarding audience, I think that some readers may not understand that web  
content (a single "web unit") can combine different technologies using  
plugins. This isn't always an easy concept to get across to non-technical  
people. this could be included in the Background section.


-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant,
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios),
Madrid, Spain.
achuter@technosite.es




On Thu, 04 May 2006 17:28:42 +0200, Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu> wrote:

>
>
> I agree with Sylvie's lead.  In addition, I also spent time reading the  
> document and never really understood exactly what a baseline was.  That  
> is I'd have to study it for a few hours more, and I hope to do that  
> today, before I could define the word "baseline".  I am not sure whether  
> the term is ambiguous or the exlanation is unclear.
>
> I'll think more on this and try to come up with my definition before  
> tomorrow's meeting.  That would be a good problem for me.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Wayne Dick PhD
> Chair Computer Engineering and Computer Science
> Director WebAdapt2Me Project at CSULB
>
>

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 16:01:52 UTC