- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:06:40 -0600
- To: Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com
- CC: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Good thread. I agree with the premise that most people want a short place to start from, and then the ability to drill down to more information. There are some who want a full manual to read. The WCAG 2.0 materials were designed to meet multiple needs and preferences. (reminder that we did some user-centered design analysis and usability testing on this quite a while ago) Indeed, at a past SXSW I said something like "don't ready WCAG 2.0, instead read Understanding WCAG 2.0" -- and now I say use "How to Meet WCAG 2.0: A customizable quick reference..." However, WCAG 2.0 itself (the small normative document) *is needed* to provide a normative reference. ~Shawn Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com wrote: > > Henny et al, > > It is getting interesting. > > The way normative text is separated from informative is leveraged > (elsewhere) by following http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > > Now I hear that the normative guidelines are hard to read and > understanding those guidelines is a lot prettier document. Actually > understanding doc copies guidelines and then exposes them. This makes it > a complete document supported by techniques, Guidelines doc is a mere > extensive table of content with reference links. I now feel that reading > WCAG can well be replaced by reading the table of content of The > "Understanding..." doc. So to me now this is not a question whether it > is hard or easy to read WCAG, it is the question whether I need WCAG in > its currrent form or not. Understanding doc should be the WCAG doc: well > presented, well layed out, informative enough to read and containing all > the requirements. > > OK, don't want to infuriate anyone so stopping here. > > Anna > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org >> [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Henny Swan >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:20 AM >> To: William Loughborough >> Cc: EOWG >> Subject: Re: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents. >> >> >> I have to agree with you here. The whole thing is not meant to >> be read end-to-end but is designed to be referred to. That in >> mind I think the Understanding document is excellent. It's the >> main document I refer to because invariably I'm researching >> error handling or headings and want everything in one easy >> page with the rest of the document at hand but out of the way. >> >> It also looks a lot prettier and has a better layout than >> other documents so it gets my vote all round. >> >> Great write up Wayne. >> >> Henny >> >> On 19 Nov 2008, at 08:13, William Loughborough wrote: >> >>> It's a bit like saying that the shop manual for an >> automobile is "hard >>> reading" or "too long." >>> >>> Hence Wayne's "The key misunderstanding here is that someone would >>> ever need to read either document from end to end." >>> >>> This is totally a non-issue disguised as something that matters and >>> Wayne's description of the process of *using* the documents rather >>> than actually *reading* them is spot on. >>> >>> Love. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM, <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com> wrote: >>> those 3 docs will remain uneasy reading. >>> >> >> >> >> --- >> Henny Swan >> Web Evangelist >> Member of W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Education and >> Outreach Group www.opera.com >> >> Blog: www.iheni.com >> >> Stay up to date with the Web Standards Curriculum www.opera.com/wsc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 17:06:49 UTC