RE: General Techniques...

Alistair wrote:
<blockquote>
To my mind, I still believe it might be far less confusing to the reader
if the guidance provided through the General techniques document was
written directly
into each technology specific techniques document (i.e. HTML, CSS,
etc...) as specific techniques, examples and tests - removing, the need
for the General
Techniques document entirely.
 
This might also help to straighten them out, getting the techniques
where they belong.
 
 
</blockquote>
 
I wonder if we could accomplish something along the lines of what
Alistair proposes by pulling material from the general techs source xml
into the technology-specific techniques documents on the fly.  In other
words, there could be multiple views: a user could opt to read the
General Techniques as if it were a document in its own right, more or
less as it's being constructed now (though with clearer structures,
mgreater consistency than is currently present, etc., etc.-- all the
things we've been starting to talk through).  Another  user (or the same
user on a different afternoon<grin>) could choose to go directly to the
HTML or SVG document, and could then see both the general techniques and
the technology-specific content.
It seems to me that we might run into difficulty with this approach in
some contexts.  For example, I'm not sure how well this approach would
work for CSS and scripting techniques, because the assumption is that
both of those technologies are always used together with other
technologies, whether XHTML or something else.
 
Another difficulty would be that each general technique would have to
make sense both as a standalone text *and* in multiple contexts. (Sort
of like what we require for link text and section titles-- they have to
work "when read by themselves or as a group" <grin>).  That kind of
writing can be demanding at sentence- or phrase-level (as in link text
and section titles).  It's extraordinarily difficult for longer
materials, especially when they would have to work in so many different
contexts.
 
The closest model I can think of is Marvin Minsky's  book _Society of
Mind_ (1986), which consists of a number of separate essays, each
contained on a single (oversized) page, that can be read as a linear
sequence or as  a set of possible combinations.  It's a
theoreticaldescription *and* a performative demonstration of the
connectionist model of mind.  It's brilliant, and took him years to
write.  The essays work in these multiple permutations because they're
all written by Minsky, who thus has control over all the connective
tissue.
 
This is not to say that we shouldn't try for it, but it's not a
straightforward thing as far as I can tell.
 
John"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alistair Garrison
	Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:47 am
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: RE: General Techniques...
	
	

	Dear All, 

	 

	I agree...

	 

	To my mind, I still believe it might be far less confusing to
the reader if the guidance provided through the General techniques
document was written directly into each technology specific techniques
document (i.e. HTML, CSS, etc...) as specific techniques, examples and
tests - removing, the need for the General Techniques document entirely.

	 

	This might also help to straighten them out, getting the
techniques where they belong.

	 

	Alistair 

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
	Sent: 10 February 2005 18:20
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: RE: General Techniques...

	 

	This is a problem.  And we do need to straighten them out. 

	 

	Also we could have a link that would patch the general on the
specific.  But they are organized differently and I don't think we  can
shuffle them together.  And I don't think we should maintain them
already shuffled or the text will vary from one to another over time. 

	 

	We are working on getting the techniques where they belong. They
currently are mixed up. 

	 

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

	
________________________________


	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alistair Garrison
	Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:24 AM
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: General Techniques...

	 

	Dear All, 

	 

	Over the past weeks I have been undertaking an end-to-end
analysis of the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and Techniques (as far as reasonably
possible).

	 

	The issue I come across most is the fact Technology Specific
techniques and General techniques don't seem to line up - leaving me
confused about what I need to do for conformance to WCAG 2.0.  You can
find technology specific techniques which go too far and specify things
which should be left to the General techniques i.e. specified values for
alt text; or General techniques which are over-extended to talk about
technology specific things i.e. captions, mathematical expressions,
video.     

	 

	Again, I state that this is causing me a great deal of
confusion, and I'm sure others are finding (or will find) the same
thing.

	 

	To my mind, it might be far less confusing to the reader if the
guidance provided through the General techniques document was written
directly into each technology specific techniques document (i.e. HTML,
CSS, etc...) as specific techniques, examples and tests - removing, the
need for the General Techniques document entirely.

	 

	I would be very interested to hear the thoughts and comments of
others on this matter.

	 

	Alistair 

	 

	Alistair Garrison 

	Managing Director 

	Accessinmind Limited UK Filial

	 

	Tel.: 0046 8 44 65 287
	Website: http://www.accessinmind.com
	 
	IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the
addressee   
	only.  It may contain privileged and/or confidential
information.  If it   
	has come to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
If you   
	are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy,
print,   
	distribute or rely on its contents.  All e-mails and any
attachments are
	believed, but not warranted, to be virus free.  However, all
e-mails   
	should be virus checked before being downloaded and we accept no

	responsibility therefore.