RE: tone as a guildeline?

I think it may be a good idea to just collect these "other thoughts" for
now and perhaps we can use them in a section of the guidelines or
techniques doc or somewhere to create "additional things to consider"
list.


As to being normative but not checkpoints.  I'm not sure what that
means.  It is an interesting thought.  At first it seemed like
everything normative needed to be checkable --  but thinking further it
would seem that only those things required for conformance would need to
be testable checkpoints.     Maybe we can have normative suggestions
that are not required.  

Hmmmmmmmm

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: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 8:43 PM
> To: Charles McCathieNevile; Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: 'GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)'
> Subject: Re: tone as a guildeline?
> 
> At 9:39 PM -0500 12/9/01, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >If we have anything useful to say then I think we are getting into
content
> >and effect to the extent that it impacts access - much as we do in
various
> >other areas (such as the very sensible requirement that people who
cannot
> >make use of each part of the content are nevertheless not excluded
from
> using
> >whatever they can).
> 
> Maybe we need "advisories" and "guidelines."  Advisories could be
> normative, too, they're just not checkable.  This could solve some of
> our problems with things like "use enough illustrations" and "use
> simple enough language."
> 
> --Kynn
> 
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
> http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 01:36:47 UTC