RE: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.

How's this for confusing
We can't even talk about CharlesM or CM since we now have two of each.
Using CamelCase I guess we could use CM and CMCN.

Anyhow -- Question to CMunat

Were you suggesting breaking the guidelines into 3 documents? Or just
regrouping along different titles?


Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 8:06 AM
To: Charles F. Munat
Cc: WAI Guidelines WG
Subject: RE: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this.
I'm serious.

For all that I am not in favour of using the results of this to produce
three
documents, I think this is a very important step to approaching what we
are
trying to do. I agree that the difference between comprehension and
"device
independence" is a major source of friction within the group, but I
think the
answer to that is that we try to listen a bit more carefully to each
other,
and reduce the friction that goes with working on different things at
the
same time.

Cheers

Charles

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Charles F. Munat wrote:

  I suggest reviewing all checkpoints, splitting some into more detailed
  checkpoints, and reorganizing them into three groups. I think that we
can
  find homes for the technology checkpoints.

  As for leaving access and comprehension together, those are the two
areas I
  am MOST interested in seeing separated, because I think that this
  intersection is the source of almost all the friction and controversy
in
  this group. Also, I'd like to see a lot more focus on comprehension.
And I
  have some questions, such as, How do we measure success?

  I would at least like to take a stab at it. Is anyone else willing to
help
  come up with a quick rearrangement of the checkpoints to see what
something
  like this might look like? If it just doesn't work, well, thems the
breaks.
  But I'd really like to give it a try just to see...

  Chas.

Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 10:05:25 UTC