Re: Detail on agenda item #4, scope & dependency sections of WCAG WG charter

At 12:58 PM 10/26/00 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>neither is intended as a easier-to-use version of the guidelines themselves,

"easier to use" and "easier to read" are different.

The guidelines themselves should never have as their purpose "ease of 
reading" but should entirely concern themselves with precision, clarity, etc.

Of course they can be well-written but their very nature/purpose/audience 
precludes that they be "easy to read by laypersons." That is not their 
intent nor will it be the outcome of the Working Group's efffort.  Nor 
should it be.

Wherever any "easier reading" version is created, it should in no wise 
affect what must be a "technical" document, else it will be too easily 
misinterpreted/misused/ineffective.

Decisions as to whether any particular approach to "ease of use" works well 
is another matter and there is at least one proposal, 
http://rdf.pair.com/xchecker.htm intended to do that - there can be others 
including the checklist document, which in its way does the same thing. 
It's at 
http://web3.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/checkpoint-list.html and 
is a typical W3C/WAI looking document.

While there have been numerous forays into making WAI materials  more 
"accessible" (in the lower-case sense) produced by EO, there have been none 
by WCAG WG and maybe that's as it should be.

JB:: "...to develop more in-depth training materials as derivative works 
from the normative guidelines where additional educational resources are 
required -- but not to develop derivative normative works."

WL: I'm not sure there can be "derivative" works that are simultaneously 
"normative".

JB:: "2.2 Ease-of-use considerations may be accomplished through layering 
multiple documents in a set, or by integrating understandable language 
throughout the document, or by some other means, but are a fundamental part 
of the guidelines document requirements."

WL: If this is a "fundamental" requirement, I believe we are going to be 
needlessly hobbled in our efforts. In fact, I don't believe it can be done. 
If it can, some examples should be given of what constitutes something that 
meets these essentially mutually exclusive goals. You call for a document 
with "sufficient technical precision...with language accessible to 
non-technical audiences..." It's easy to say, but unlikely to ever get done.

The proposed 8.5 contains: "The WCAG WG relies on EOWG to help advise with 
regard to ease-of-use considerations around WCAG deliverables, particularly 
for its normative guidelines." This will lengthen the process unacceptably 
and might even lead to compromises in precision.

"(2) A derivative guidelines document coming from EOWG could not be 
formally referenced as a W3C Recommendation, yet a referenceable W3C WCAG 
Recommendation is what is needed;" As to "referenceability" (oh, ye 
creators of words, unite!) it is hard to imagine why a "derivative 
guidelines document" coming from either/both groups could be simultaneously 
normative/usable/readable/referenceable.

In case it's not clear, I think this is not a "good thing". If there is to 
be a "derivative" and "EOWG has a full plate of other responsibilities" 
then perhaps some priority realignment's in order but we have to get on 
with writing 2.0 and I fail to see how resurfacing an issue we already 
decided against will help.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 14:19:32 UTC