[techs] - questions for rdf techs document

I am working on the RDF techniques document, having finally got the hang
of xml spy.

However before I spend too long doing the wrong thing, I was hoping to
consult...

The div 1 id's that I have started using are:

Media equivalents, technology equivalents, clarity, structure.

And then under media equivalents for non textual content  I would have
techniques for short descriptions, long descriptions, and images that
replace text.  Alternates for frames and scripts I am putting as
techniques for technology equivalents.

On the other hand I see that the html techniques the Div1 ID are centric
on the technology -for example frames are a Div 1 level and not a
technique

Do you prefer that I keep to the ID's of the html techniques, or is that
unnecessary?

Can I add to the ID's  "clarity" and, "structure" in place of "text" -
as text is too vague for me,

Is this restricted?

---------
Next question

I also want a div1 section on usages - how to use SWAP server and RDF
header file. How to annotate with Amaya That each technique can
reference the usage div

What is the best way to do that?

--------------
Next question

HTML techniques are in some ways a bit like gateway - for example: they
not only say technically how to add a text equivalent but also add
examples of how a  text equivalent should be worded

Should RDF techniques also be that prolific, or is an example of adding
equivalents enough without examples of what makes a good text
equivalent?


All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Cooper
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:55 PM
To: WAI GL (E-mail)
Subject: [techs] Summary of Techniques teleconference 17 September 2003



PRESENT

Ben Caldwell
Michael Cooper
Tom Croucher
Sailesh Panchang
Roberto Scano


DISCUSSION

Discussion on the Techniques Gateway focused on what content belongs in
this document, and what belongs elsewhere. This was driven in part by a
concern that people would go straight to the techniques and miss the
guidelines altogether. We solve this problem to some extent by the
design of the views (the readable transformations of the XML source for
the techniques) and need to attend to that in the design of views. The
explicit relationship of techniques to Success Criteria is also part of
this, so that needs to be worked into the document. Regarding
organization, we decided it probably makes the most sense to organize
the Techniques Gateway in the same way as the guidlelines, even though
other technology-specific documents may be organized in different ways
(e.g., in related groups like "forms" and "tables"). The ability to view
gateway techniques in the same "semantic" way is then an issue but
should be addressed by the explicit relationship of technology-specific
techniques to the gateway techniques.

We had a shorter talk about use cases. We like some of what has come out
of that work so far. We'd like to create a few additional personae to
explore questions of internationalization, but then we thought use case
work should focus on describing how people will use the techniques,
independent of particular personae we would assign. We also need to
consolidate and formalize them.

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 09:53:54 UTC