- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:01:17 +1100 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Given that the guidelines are likely to be scrutinized carefully in a variety of contents (by software developers, implementors, regulators, policy analysts, etc.), I would agree with William that they must maintain a high standard of clarity and precision, thus avoiding any informal treatment of the subject. The latter could be included, perhaps, in a section which is explicitly identified as non-normative, or in a separate document, perhaps prepared by EO (as they are more in contact with non-specialist audiences than we are). Do we need to define our terms twice, once in an informal introduction (perhaps worked on jointly with EO) and again in precise definitions that would be designed to avoid the kind of ambiguity and misconstruction that can easily arise when terms and concepts are not carefully explained and used consistently. For example, the term "textual equivalent" was introduced into WCAG 1.0 (and accompanying documents), at least in part as a response to the inadequacies that had been identified in the existing nomenclature. Specifically, the term "description" had to be avoided, as it was inappropriate and misleading: a genuine "equivalent" to an image, for example, achieves the same effect and plays the same role as the graphical content, but often does not constitute a description of it. Emphasis is placed on the function and meaning to be communicated in the context of the document, rather than on a characterisation of the medium-specific presentation for which the text provides a substitute. Similar arguments apply to many of the other terms which have been introduced in the course of developing the guidelines. They serve to clarify concepts and, if used consistently, can actually facilitate comprehension of the text (for example by avoiding long and repetitious explanatory clauses in sentences). Thus, writing on my own behalf and not in my capacity as co-chair, I would urge that informal explanations be either avoided or provided in sections of the working group's deliverables that are clearly identified as illucidatory and non-normative.
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 03:03:21 UTC