- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:33:11 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>, Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:12 AM 2/16/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I feel that it presupposes the existence of certain types of
>"interpretative documents" which, to the best of my knowledge, either
>don't exist or aren't acknowledged by the W3C.
However crude they may be, I have published two "interpretative documents"
http://rdf.pair.com/xpos.html
http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm
the latter an ongoing parallel to the WCAG 2 effort.
There is no reason why there cannot be a proliferation of various levels of
"keys to the guidelines". To do this in the document proper is IMO vain
effort for the reasons Jason has cited. Just as there are millions of
interpretations of "Great Books" so there can be more than one way of
looking at the guidelines, but for there to be such "interpretive
documents" there must be a *something* there to interpret.
Our debate is as to whether the actual root document can serve so well that
it needs no further elucidation. As we write this thing we trying to make
it clear while keeping it precise and, but I don't believe it will ever get
to the point where, if it's thorough/precise/+ it will not be greeted with
the old "arrrrrrgh, it's huge/impenetrable/opaque/off-putting/+" complaints
with which we are all too familiar.
Just saying it's not clear or well-written without proposing alternatives
that are well-written and clear is something we have at least begun to avoid.
Opacity begets clarification!
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 12:33:59 UTC