- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:20:08 -0500
- To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
A couple things I remember from the discussion were 1 Writing principles as imperatives confuses them with guidelines that are imperatives. 2 Principles usually are not worded as commands. Anybody remember other points? Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:50 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: John's proposed wording for Principle 4 What happened to the original idea that all principles should be written as imperatives? We decided that success criteria couldn't be imperatives, but principles could. "Robust" seems as good a word as any for principle 4 - "Design content to be robust" or "technologically robust" or "interoperable" or "for interoperability".
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 05:21:10 UTC