- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:59:02 +1100 (EST)
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John M Slatin wrote: > > It's also a little daunting! I say that because it sounds like these are > actually two separate documents, each one pretty large in its own right > (I'm seeing a heavy book in my mind's eye). And I'm not sure I > understand how they relate to what's presently in the > Technology-specific or the General Techniques docs. Take a single techniques document. It contains a list of techniques (required and, if we so decide, advisory) related to each success criterion. One way of ordering these is by success criterion. Another way is by the features of the language used, for example the different parts of the HTML spec that deal with block and inline structures, forms, multimedia, etc. The main question then is whether the techniques can be so drafted that they make sense in both orderings. For the general techniques this might be problematic as there aren't any tasks or language features involved; rather, the general techniques serve to complete the technology-specifics by providing those techniques that would otherwise be repeated in each technology-specific document, because they are independent of the implementation technologies. What do you think? Does this help to solidify the proposal?
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 02:59:15 UTC