- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:23:26 -0700
- To: "seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:18 AM 9/7/2000 , seeman wrote: >I know I have said this before, so maybe I'm missing the point, but I do not >see why there need be a conflict - we need it all: academic highly defined >guidelines, concrete and common examples, and readable - if less >definitive - articles and guideline summaries. > >We live in a hypertext environment, were the one can easily link to the >other, and by careful placement of these links and naming of each piece of >the puzzle, the reader can easily be guided to the level were s/he belongs. > >We do not need to compromise on losing our audience, on clarity or the >thoroughness of the guidelines. It is called information hiding. I don't think there's any debate on that, but I do think that any good document is not going to try to be "all things to all people" and rely on hyperlinks to sort out the mess. A well-written technical document _does_ consider the audiences and doesn't try to mix things too much, even if you -do- create links which (supposedly) separate content. (Actually, links serve to join content, not separate it.) Maybe the problem is that I'm expecting "well-written"? Is this actually a goal of the working group? From seeing some of the comments, I'm not sure that "readability", "understandability", and "well-written" actually _are_ expectations of the revised WCAG. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee! http://www.khyri.com/icann/
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:37:02 UTC