Re: "intro"

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

Kynn Bartlett  <>             
Director of Accessibility, Edapta        
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
AWARE Center Director               
Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee!

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:37:02 UTC