RE: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.

 Hello Wayne,

Interesting reading -:) I totally agree with you that as long as a
document is well organized it is easy to read it as a whole or in parts.
Now. If "guidelines" is not an easy read and someone has to switch to
"understanding" document, what is the point of the whole exercise? Why
on earth to write a document (I mean "guidelines") that is hard to read
without supporting material? With the same tree structure all three docs
can be combined in an easy way in the same tree structure:
1. Guideline
1.1 Understanding this guideline
1.2 Success criteria
1.2.n Success criterion n
1.2.n.1 Understanding this success criterion
1.2.n.2 Technique(s) for this criterion

When everything is bundled in a single "book" one can read it to the
desired level of details. WCAG documents is not a fiction and a
technical specification needs to be as long as it has to be for
implementors to understand the thing. Well, noone is going to combine 3
docs into one and those 3 docs will remain uneasy reading.

Anna


>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Wayne Dick
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:47 AM
>To: Shawn Henry; EOWG (E-mail)
>Subject: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.
>
>
>Hi Group,
>
>I have always been confused  about the complaint over document 
>length.  WCAG 2.0 Guidelines are short and to the point, and I 
>never though of reading Understanding or the Techniques from 
>end to end.  So, I wrote this response to criticism of 
>excessive length.
>
>http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/public/WCAG20/WCAG2Depth.html
>
>Please comment, and when you are done, I'll post it on the blog.
>
>Wayne 
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 06:57:27 UTC