- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>
- cc: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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". --Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] 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. I am not. In fact I think this is a fairly trivial matter and should be resolved forthwith. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 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