Eating one's own dog food

Does anyone else find it bizarre that

"Checkpoint 3.4: Supplement text with non-text content" is not 
"supplemented with non-text content" although "Checkpoint
3.5 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information with summaries 
and definitions" is annotated with definitions?

Perhaps one criterion for each checkpoint might be that it has the quality 
of illustrating (in the general sense, not *just* the graphical sense) 
itself? For example "Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure through 
presentation, positioning, and labels" is exemplified by the overall 
appearance of GL items. "Do as we have done, not just as we say" should 
rule. IMO.

The current discussion about databases and multiple views shows a trend 
towards following this principle but it must be more than vaporware before 
we can be said to be honoring "Guideline 2 - Interaction. Design content 
that allows interaction according to the user's needs and preferences" with 
genuine examples wherein a user of this document is truly allowed to 
interact therewith along with the provision (which probably *is* already 
made) of what is called forth by "Checkpoint 2.1 Provide multiple site 
navigation mechanisms".

It can be argued that leaving "Guideline 1 - Presentation. Design content 
that allows presentation according to the user's needs and
preferences" to the tender mercies of the browser without providing for 
some exemplification *within the document itself* is a breach of the "dog 
food rule".

Daily I feed a 150# Irish Wolfhound - a lot. He always eats well but when 
the food is liberally laced with the food we had some of for ourselves he 
clearly eats with far greater intensity, as if to say "more like it - 
giving me the *real* stuff".


--
Love.
EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 21:21:37 UTC