Re: Terminology

In the disussions where we created the structure of WCAG 1, we decided that
we want ed abstract guidelines which were statements of principle, and more
specific checkpoints, which were verifiable but independent of particular
technologies. The idea was good, the first implementation could be improved.

In the second one we have done a better job of shifting the tings that are
abstract into the top layer, and the things that are verifiable into the
second, and shifting things that are technology specific into the third.

(Think about checkpoints in WCAG 1 like 1.1 - they are not based on a
particular technology, are verifiable, and it is helpful to have techniques
for them in specific technologies and situations.



On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  JW:: "...all involve some departures from past practices..."
  WL: Good! That's the point. Or at least a point. The previous
  manifestations of the document lacked a layer that was sufficiently
  general and abstract. The new one has such a layer. It doesn't matter
  what they are called. The top layer (called "principles" so far) is not
  only not technology-specific it might not even refer exclusively to the
  We need this and we're very close to it already.

Charles McCathieNevile    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative            
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 

Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 22:12:12 UTC