- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I have no problem with the principles being academic, but I think we should try to express them in language that is a bit closer to what people speak. Charles On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, William Loughborough wrote: GV:: "my first point is that many of our principles are way too academic." WL: I had hoped that would be the idea. They will almost always be in the context of having Guidelines and Checkpoints associated with them but they furnish a "lofty" view of what we're about. I seem to remember the words "abstract" and "general" - which almost demands "academic". I have no quarrel with all the rest of the (mostly editorial/wordsmithing issues) comments in Gregg's post. But please let's let the prinicples be Principles. They can say it in general enough terms (and abstractly enough) that they might even resound. I believe their brevity (and IMO clarity) trumps any complaints about "academic" leading to a turn-off. The casual reader (whatever that is in this case!) only has to look down one more line and be in a "real world" description of the "how" and even a bit of "what". -- -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 22:14:39 UTC