Reorganization proposal

Hello,

This is to let you know that a reorganization proposal is available for 
your review.

This reorganization is by no means a silver bullet to solve all of the 
issues we are facing; I wish it were.  Instead, it tries to:
1. demonstrate the clarity gained by moving best practices and additional 
notes to a separate document (NOTE: a mock-up of "gateway to techniques" is 
not provided as part of this proposal. we did not have time to complete this.).
2. demonstrate that no requirements are lost by moving best practices and 
additional notes to a separate document.
3. suggest rewrites.  in some cases we propose a new checkpoint or success 
criteria; in other cases we propose combining two checkpoints into one or 
separating one checkpoint into two.
4. identify testability issues, ambiguities, and unclear phrases.  in some 
cases we suggest proposed text.

We acknowledge that there are issues with this draft.  For example, we 
combined checkpoint 1.4 (core) and 3.2 (extended) into a single extended 
checkpoint (3.2).  We have reasons for doing this but are not convinced 
that this is the best approach;  we hope to stimulate discussion.  We hope 
that the proposal, with its faults, will be considered a step forward and a 
useful framework to discuss the issues already on the table.

Other issues and comments:
1. As with the July review draft, the introduction has been omitted so that 
the focus is on checkpoints and success criteria.
2. We moved definitions from within the checkpoints to a glossary at the 
end of the document.  Even though in the xml each glossary item has a 
unique id, those ids are not present when the document is transformed to 
HTML.  In checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2 we wanted to demonstrate linking to 
definitions instead of providing them in the checkpoint.  Because the 
glossary items do not have ids, the links to them (from the checkpoints) 
are broken.

The 3 drafts:

1. the "clean" draft
does not show any editorial notes nor does it show any edits.  we hope this 
gives people a sense of how the document could look after it has been 
"cleaned up."
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/06-reorg-proposal.html

2. draft with editorial notes
throughout the draft we use editorial notes (marked "CKW:") to highlight 
issues and provide rationale.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/06-reorg-proposal-with-ednotes.html

3. draft that shows deletions and additions
we wanted to show which content we propose deleting or changing as well as 
provide rationale for each suggestion. again, we used editorial notes 
marked "CKW:" to provide rationale but they are displayed visually with 
strike-through and might be difficult to read.  note that we moved all of 
the definitions from the checkpoints to the glossary but did not mark these 
sections as deleted or moved.  (NOTE: While the two other drafts validate 
as XHTML1 transitional, this draft does not.  I did not have time to fix 
all of the nesting errors related to using the diff attribute in xml to 
mark changes.  Not because I don't know how to fix it, but I ran out of time.)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/06-reorg-proposal-edits-visible.html

Best,
--wendy for Cynthia and Kerstin.
Thanks to Cynthia and Kerstin for all of the time they put into this proposal.

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 17:38:29 UTC