RE: renaming the guidelines (issue #3 from yesterday's telecon)

Sigh.

Well then, be specific and reflect what the document is  "HTML and CSS
Authoring Guidelines".

Would amazon.com be considered "content"?  Would the designers there say
"Hey!  The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are meant for me!"

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:chisholm@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 2:38 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: renaming the guidelines (issue #3 from yesterday's telecon)


yes, but that title could apply to all of the guidelines and be very
confusing.  We decided yesterday that we need some sort of "modifier" to
set us apart from the UA and AU guidelines.
--wendy

At 04:33 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote:
>Drop both Content and Site and leave it as "W3C Web Accessibility
>Guidelines" - that gives you a lot of flexibility later on.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:chisholm@trace.wisc.edu]
>Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 2:15 PM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: renaming the guidelines (issue #3 from yesterday's telecon)
>
>
>The framework of the names for the WAI set of guidelines was determined
>by the Coordnation Group. They chose, "W3C <working group chosen
>phrase> Accessibility Guidelines."
> 
>There was much discussion about the terms "site" and
>"content." It was felt that "site" implies server issues.
>After much discussion it was felt that the guidelines address making
>"content" accessible and therefore it would be appropriate to use in
>the title. However, it might not be as marketable as "site" We all
>agreed to send the following two choices to the list for comment:
> 
>1.  W3C Web Site Accessibility Guidelines 
>2.  W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
>
>thoughts?
>--wendy
>

Received on Friday, 15 January 1999 17:55:10 UTC