Re: New proposal for 2.3 - still in the works

At 05:58 PM 11/12/00 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>welcome suggestions from others...on a proposal for Guideline 2 and all of 
>its supporting checkpoints

In the guideline "significant" might be troublesome, begging for a dividing 
line to separate "insignificant" structure? as well as the restrictive 
choice of two fairly specific methods.

As to generalization: in 2.1 the specificity of "markup languages" rather 
than something more enveloping like "technologies"?

For 2.2 I don't know the generic category to which "style languages" 
belongs and I'm not sure there's a difference 'twixt "layout" and 
"presentation"? and "Where practicable, provide (or link to) multiple style 
sheets, each supporting a different output device" might have a higher 
level of abstraction expression (which I can't come up with right now). 
Expressing the idea that the author is going to have to prepare for the 
probability that this thing of hers will be listened to, touched, looked at 
in various formats, etc. is the central goal of the checkpoint. I think 
Al's exposition of this point in 
http://trace.wisc.edu/handouts/sc2000/middleware_and_eSCaped_web/index.htm 
where he says "One will need to think ahead to what kinds of content or 
services are flowing through your process, and what kinds of interaction 
spaces they need to be available in" sums it up.

In 2.3 it might be that a flag is raised by the use of "provide". It is 
also possible that there is a certain "technique" quality to "Use markup or 
a data model" in part because they are less "general" than what we've been 
seeking and that the phrase seems to propose limits of the either/or 
variety. Expose/reveal/explain/identify/clarify structure might do it as 
could "make explicit" which is already in the guideline.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 15:48:48 UTC