Re: Suggestions

By and large I agree with Daniel's comments. I have included those I
disagree with below, with my comments interspersed.
Charles (see EH:: and DD:: and CMcCN::)

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
EH::
> > Item-10. Inclusion of Exceptions
DD::
> A good improvement.
CMcCN::
I'm not sure that we want ot include stuff in each guideline/technique,
rather than using a once-off covering statement. But this is not a strong
opinion.

EH::
> > Item-13. Orientation to "Products and Services"
> > I suggest considering orienting the guidelines around the
> > concept of improving the accessibility of "Web-based
> > products and services" (rather than of "pages" or "sites"). 
> > Isn't it the services and products that need to be
> > accessible? Who knows how relevant the term "page" will be
> > in a few years? The term "Web site" seems all the more
> > problematic. I have not thoroughly examined the implications
> > of a wholesale change. Perhaps even a partial shift in that 
> > direction would be helpful. (See my revised Abstract for the
> > WAIGL-PA document.)
DD:: 
> I still favor "Content" over Product & Service, Page and Site, etc.
CMcCN::
Or document/ document fragment. My understanding of the technical use of
these terms in XML is that they are comprehensible, and sepcify
effectively the range of things we want to cover. But Content is good too.

EH::
> > Item-14. Make Guidelines One Sentence Long
> > 
> > I recommend that all guidelines be one sentence long.
> > Guideline A.14 is currently two sentences long and reads:
> > "Wherever possible use a W3C technology in accordance with
> > guidelines on its proper use. Where this is either not
> > possible, or results in material that does not transform
> > gracefully you must provide an alternative version of the
> > content that is accessible." I suggest reducing it to one
> > sentence or splitting it into two guidelines. All other
> > guidelines are one sentence long.
> ..
> > #1. "Use W3C technology in accordance with guidelines on its
> > proper use."
> ..
> > #2. "When material that does not transform gracefully, then 
> > provide an alternative version of the content that is
> > accessible." 
DD:
> Yes, it could indeed be splitted in two, along the lines
> 
>  - use latest W3C format (HTML4 with CSS)
>  - for non W3C format, provide alternative representations so that no
>    information is lost when data is inaccessible, unsupported, or turned off. 
CMcCN::
I disagree violently. It is a single guideline, which requires a complex
exception case to be defined. THis is best done in two sentences - the
alternatives are to simplify the guideline, which I think would lead to an
incomplete statement being made in one long and horrible sentence, or to
run the two sentences together, which reduces the focus on interpreting
both sentences carefully.

Charles McCathieNevile

Received on Saturday, 5 December 1998 16:59:54 UTC