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

 Wayne,

The information on you Blog entry is good. I also like the information
you have below about the distinction between normative and informative.
What are your thoughts about including that as well?



Jack . 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Dick [mailto:wed@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:58 PM
To: Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com; w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Subject: Re: An answer to the length issue for WCAG 2.0 Documents.


Hi Anna,

I think the purpose of the guidelines is to be an unambiguous
specification of a standard.  While it is tempting to include
informative expositions within the document, this kind of integration
creates a blur between what is normative stardard language and what is
informative exposition.  People soon quote informative explanations as
if they were the standard.  This since the entire Understanding and
Techniques documents are informative then any quote from those documents
will not be confused for standard language.  I think that is the reason.
We should ask Shawn this week.  She is part of both groups.

Well Shawn, I guess that give you some homework for Friday.

Wayne



----- Original Message -----
From: <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com>
To: <wed@csulb.edu>; <shawn@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: 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 18:29:22 UTC