Re: Investigating terminology & structure with HTML examples


Even though I haven't had a chance to read the WCAG 2.0 draft in
detail yet, I've been reading this discussion with some concern.

As someone who tend to read document thinking how it would be
translated, I agree with Wendy's comment.

It is preferrable that terms that have been widely used and accepted
should remain being used in similar way.  I believe changing the
meaning of already-used terms si more difficult than introducing new
notion and associated terms.  Similarly, changing what to call
concepts which already is widely accepted isn't so easy.

I can't come up with a good name to call the newest layer, but from
Wendy's four proposals, b. seems good for the ease of translation.


On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:56:45 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> It would be easier to refer to the technology specifics if we had something
> specific to call them.  "Technology-specific checkpoints" seems long and it
> is a new term.  However, I would prefer to add a new term to what will
> actually be new than renaming something that exists already.
> In other words, I tend to agree that the proposed Principles are similar to
> the current WCAG 1.0 Guidelines.  Proposed Guidelines and WCAG 1.0
> checkpoints also seem to have a similar feel.  I believe that what is new
> is the idea of technology-specific checks.  I don't care so much what we
> call them, but I agree that we do not want to break the old terminology.
> Therefore, perhaps we could focus naming the newest layer.  I propose
> a. "Technology specific checkpoints" or
> b.  "HTML-specific checkpoints" then "CSS-specific checkpoints" etc. or
> c. "HTML checks" "CSS checks" etc. or
> d. "HTML tests" "CSS tests" etc.
> thoughts?

Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2000 18:32:33 UTC