RE: John's proposed wording for Principle 4

For #4, why not just eliminate the distinction between "current" and "future", 
and just mention "technologies" in general?  I don't understand why there is a 
distinction made between "current" and "future", since to my knowledge, there 
is no specific definition we've accepted as to what constitutes a "current" 
technology versus a "future" one.  If we want to talk about "future", perhaps 
we could mention a goal of "forward compatibility" somewhere (may relate 
to "versioning" discussion)?   Also, what specifically does it mean for 
content to "work" with a technology?

Best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

     Quoting Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:

> 
> Looks very interesting 
> 
> Everyone - please post any comments you have against the following.  If we
> don't identify any (that we can't address) I propose we move to this
> wording.
> 
> If we get comments - we can address/incorporate them and move to new
> wording. 
> 
> 
> At 01:34 PM 7/15/2005, Neil Whiteley wrote:
>   I propose that all 4 Principals (taking into account Johns proposal) 
> could be written thus:
> 
> 1. Content is perceivable
> 2. User interface components in the content are operable 
> 3. Content and controls are understandable 
> 4. Content is able to work with current and future technologies
> 
> 
> (the last one may be a bit specific. Robust was too vague but 'working with
> future technologies" is a bit impossible.  Anyone think of a fix or way to
> not sound so ....... hard to achieve? (since we can never really make things
> so that they will work with all future technologies) 
> 
> Thanks
>  
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------ 
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center 
> University of Wisconsin-Madison 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 11:24:49 UTC