RE: Words in place of optional

Wendy wrote the following  in response to an exchange between Lisa and
Cris:

<blockquote>
The levels are related to conformance.  Techniques are informative --
not 
required for conformance -- therefore I don't think we can use the
levels 
to describe techniques.
</blockquote>

To be pedantic about it, the techniques *documents* are informative.
The techniques documents describe some techniques that are *sufficient*
to satisfy specific success criteria (the sufficiency of a given
technique may also be affected by the technologies in the baseline the
content author is using).  In some cases the techniques documents may
describe techniques which the Working Group regards as good practice
even though the technique in question may not be sufficient to satisfy a
specific success criterion. 
We're still looking for the best way to label the latter.

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web 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 Wendy Chisholm
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:24 PM
To: lisa@ubaccess.com; Chris Ridpath
Cc: wai-gl
Subject: Re: Words in place of optional



At 04:35 AM 8/1/2005, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>Chris Ridpath wrote:
>
>>Just use the 3 levels. There's no need for the confusing category of
>>"optional".
>
>
>Thanks Chris
>
>That is the point I was trying to make.

The levels are related to conformance.  Techniques are informative --
not 
required for conformance -- therefore I don't think we can use the
levels 
to describe techniques.

--wendy

Received on Monday, 8 August 2005 20:58:00 UTC