RE: What does "for example" mean

I am not agreed. I think it is true to say, in all cases, here is a possible
method. I do not think it is true in all cases to say "this is something you
must do".

charles

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  So it seems that we're split on what  "for example" means in WCAG 1.0.  I
  don't think we should spend any time arguing what "for example" "really"
  means. (Anyway, I know I'm right, so what's the point <grin/>.)  From a
  practical point of view, if we're split 50/50, the chances are our readers
  are also reading it different ways.

  But are we agreed that it's used in different ways in WCAG 1.0?  In other
  words, are we agreed that there are some places where what follows "for
  example" must be done, while at others its just one way to do it?

  If so, we need to fix it.

  Len

  At 11:23 AM 3/8/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >I would suggest the other interpretation - that "for example" means "one way
  >that this can be achieved is". That is the assumption under which I read the
  >WCAG drafts as a member of the group. Whether the example is in fact the best
  >or only way is not reaqlly relevant - I expect people will keep using it for
  >the real world, and the idea was that the examples are useful. But  they are
  >not necessarily the only or even best way.
  >
  >I agree that focussing on what things are actually required is  agood thing
  >in any event.
  >
  >my 2 bits.
  >
  >Charles
  >
  >On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
  >
  >   I agree with william that the main thing is to make sure people understand
  >   there are choices and explain the choices.
  >
  >     I suggest we change the wording from
  >
  >   quote
  >   For example, in HTML, use the "summary" attribute of the TABLE element.
  >   unquote
  >
  >   to something like
  >
  >   quote
  >   For example, in HTML, one way is to use "summary" attribute of the TABLE
  >   element.
  >   unquote
  >
  >   Or any other wording that makes it explicit that "summary" is not required.
  >
  >   Also, as part of this erratum, I think we should say that things following
  >   "for example" are always required unless the guidelines explicitly say
  >   otherwise.  I think that covers most or all of the uses of "for
  >   example".  We then put in a few words where we didn't want it to always
  >   required.
  >
  >   It this leads to arguments about whether things are required or not, well,
  >   that has to be settled for WCAG 2.0 anyway, so that work isn't wasted.
  >
  >   I think we have to be really clear here.  Adherence to WCAG is being
  >   written into actual contracts, so we should remove ambiguity as much as we
  >   can, even if it's clear to us what we mean.
  >
  >   Len
  >
  >
  >   At 07:49 AM 3/6/01 -0800, William Loughborough wrote:
  >   >At 09:21 AM 3/6/01 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
  >   >>Documents like the WCAG _are_ going to be taken literally, and if this is
  >   >>not the intent, then the authors should write more carefully
  >   >
  >   >Apparently "literally" and "carefully" are, as Al tried to point out, a
  >   >bit more complex than they seem.
  >   >
  >   >What stuff "means" is often in the mind of the reader a quite different
  >   >matter than it was for the author. Does "all men are created equal"
  >   >deliberately exclude women? Are people with otherly-colored skin
  > "men"?, etc.
  >   >
  >   >No matter how careful we are there will be different readings of our
  >   >product, but if we can avoid being too testy with one another we will find
  >   >a way to make future clarifications more likely.
  >   >
  >   >Whatever "erratum" we issue re WCAG 1.0's treatment of SUMMARY won't
  >   >matter much if we make clear that summarizing is encouraged (in the
  >   >checkpoints) and how to do it includes (in the techniques) some hierarchy
  >   >among TITLE, CAPTION, NAME, SUMMARY, ALT, LONGDESC - in other words "get
  >   >appropriate", whatever that means in a particular instance.
  >   >--
  >   >Love.
  >   >                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  >   >
  >
  >   --
  >   Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  >   Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
  >   University
  >   (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  >   http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org
  >
  >   Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  >   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/
  >
  >   The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
  >   http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
  >
  >
  >--
  >Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
  >134 136
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
  >258 5999
  >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
  >(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
  >France)

  --
  Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
  University
  (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

  Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

  The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
  http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 14:31:19 UTC