RE: Agenda

We came to the conclusion that they needed to be declarative.

The guidelines and checkpoints can be imperative - but the success criteria
need to be declarative since they are "criteria"  and criteria are never
questions.    They are targets.

That help?


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Avi Arditti
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:40 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: Agenda

One of the elements of 4.1 to discuss is the format, specifically:

Should the criteria stand as statements or as questions?

If you click on the link below, you will see that the criteria for Level 1
are written as statements, while those for Level 2 are written as
questions. Is this model OK just the way it is, or should all the criteria
be written one way or the other?

What do you prefer?

Personally, I think the strongest argument for the question format is
something I believe Gregg said, that it was harder to overlook questions.
That is, it might be more likely to grab the attention of persons applying
4.1, and cause them to think more deeply about the implication of each
item. Wait a minute, ARE the noun phrases too long? IS the sentence
structure a barrier?

See you at the meeting!


Jason White wrote:

> Thursday, 9 January, 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM
> Eastern Australia), on +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224, with the
> following agenda:
> 1. Checkpoint 4.1 proposal:
> 2. Checkpoint 5.2 success criteria. See the thread starting at
> 3. Any other business.

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 01:57:35 UTC