RE: Replace 'functionality' with 'function(s)'

The reason for the different words was that 

Functionality would include text and anything else that served a purpose or
function.

However, when you use the word 'function' or 'functions' some people
envision buttons and active elements. 

However I see your point.  And it they all seem the same to you then we
probably need to either use the simpler form - or, if that isn't accurate,
find other words to express this. 

Thanks for the pointer.   We'll have to look at each occurrence and see what
we need to do to make its meaning clear.    


 
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 Christophe Strobbe
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:39 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Replace 'functionality' with 'function(s)'


Hi,

Maybe this was already discussed before I joined the working group, but I
wonder why we don't replace "functionality" with "function" or "functions"?
Functionality is defined as
   "capable of serving a purpose well" (WordNet 2.0) or as
   "waffle for 'features' or 'function'. The capabilities or behaviours
   of a program, part of a program, or system, seen as the sum of its
   features." (FOLDOC).

I can't find any guideline or success criterion where this replacement does
not make sense, and the result is always more readable.
After all, we don't say: "If it walks like waterfowl and quacks like
waterfowl..." when we really mean a duck ;-)

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee -
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 16:54:25 UTC