RE: Terminology revisited

There is a bit of an alternative, but it involves talking to two groups.

In the Authoring guidelines we have techniques that _may_ satisfy a
checkpoint - often there is a choice of techniques, and also often a
technique will satisfy more than one checkopont.

If it is clear in the techniques document what a given technique does in the
way of providing conformance, then the choice is left to the uthor (good) and
the AERT document made by the ER group can be used to test with it (also
good, IMHO). If I get the time to work on my "new improved, RDF-capable and
altogether magical version of the reporting tool, we'll be making hay.

But in the meantime, it means that a) we have to be clear what the value of a
technique is (which I think we should anyway) and that there isn't a
normative technique that must be used - the requirement can be met any way
the author can think of, and we just supply some of those possiblities.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Cynthia Shelly wrote:

  In general, I'm in the "call it whatever you want as long as you keep it
  consistent" camp, and agree with Charles's desire to keep the same terms
  across versions.  
  That said, I'm not especially fond of the term "technique" or "example" for
  the technology specific documentation.  Both of these sound like suplemental
  material to me, and the technology specific stuff is (IMHO) the core of the
  document.  I know we decided to table the discussion of which pieces are
  normative, but I think that part of my objection to these terms is that they
  sound non-normative.
  We have been contemplating introducing a new beast to the menagerie, which
  is a normative, technology-specific document-thingy (so-called to avoid the
  naming controversy, and henceforth refered to as a DT). The DT is not the
  same as the current techniques, which are supplemental example material.
  The DT should be specific, technical, normative, testable, and current. If
  we create the DT (and I hope we do) it needs to have a unique name to avoid
  confusion with the WCAG 1.0 "technique".
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Charles McCathieNevile []
  Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 5:22 AM
  To: William Loughborough
  Cc: Jason White; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
  Subject: Re: Terminology revisited
  On the one hand I agree that this is hardly the most important question we
  are going to face this week. On the other hand, I find it difficult to
  understand why we would change the terminology, and confusing when I am
  trying to discuss the different versions (especially outside this group, for
  example giving presentations).
  So my line in the sand ius that we should use the old terminology.
  I think we have come from 14 guidelines and 68 checkpoints to about half a
  dozen guidelines and about 25 checkpoints, and that somewhere around those
  numbers is a much better place to be.
  I agree that we need a layer of examples, and of techniques for meeting the
  checkpoints with respect to a given technology or situation (as I wrote
  earlier, we will never have a situation where all
  checkpoints/requirements/wkrstfgs are relevant to all situations), and that
  they need to be fluid, and developed as the technology develops.
  Charles McCN
  On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, William Loughborough wrote:
    If anyone is drawing a line in the sand about this let that be known now.
    am not. In fact I think this is a fairly trivial matter and should be 
    resolved forthwith.

Charles McCathieNevile    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative            
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Sunday, 17 September 2000 18:40:35 UTC