- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:44:25 -0600
- To: <boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <006701c616f8$3205a8d0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
See comments below marked GV:
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Is it possible to specifically define the terms "situation" and "option"
(both in context) in excerpted paragraph following, to attempt to reduce any
perceived complexity and possibly confusion? If these terms cannot be
specifically defined in context, then perhaps they can be expressed as a
function of the single term "technique" (perhaps by some reorganization
ideas mentioned following)?
GV: interesting. Perhaps we can say "bulleted options" and "Situations".
Situations should be obvious because that is the exact word we use. If we
say "Bulleted options" that might make them clearer... OOPs. I realized
all the technology specific techniques are bulleted as well. Hmmm.
Maybe we label them Option 1: Option 2: etc
Some thoughts/questions:
1) Do techniques just need to be listed once? For example, if there are
four
techniques A, B, C, D, and the WCAG WG has determined that each of the sets
{A,C}, {A,B}, and (A,D} are "sufficient", then could technique A be listed
as
follows:
Do one of following sets of techniques: {A,B}
{A,C}
{A,D}
Note: The only term mentioned is "techniques", not "situation" or "option"?
GV: Interesting. Have to think about this. The list can get VERY long
when you have technology specific techniques. what is on one line today
would be 6 t0 8 items in this list for some techniques.
2) Could the "applicability" portion of the "technique" be used somehow to
capture "situations" information (that is, the technique "applies" to
certain "situations", but what was in "situation" is now part of the
technique applicability section?)
GV: no - the techniques docs apply to multiple success criteria and would be
confusing. Also not right place and could contradict Understanding WCAG
2.0.
3) Are there any sequencing issues among any "combinations" of techniques
(that is, is there an explicit or implicit "ordering" in any combinations
which must be followed for sufficiency?)
GV: Not that I am aware of.
4) I think that the simpler, clearer and more precise the language is, the
easier it will be for readers to understand what is needed to be done to
meet the stated SC and "manage the complexity" of the process in doing so..
GV: Yes. Definitely
Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST
Quoting Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:
> >
>
>
> Any of the following options (bullets) is deemed to be sufficient by the
> WCAG Working Group to meet success criterion XXX. If Multiple
> Situations are listed then choose an option from the situation that
> applies to the content being designed or evaluated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:59 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Technique boilerplate
>
> The boilerplate for many of our How to Meet Technique sessions says
> something like:
>
> "The following combinations of techniques are deemed to be sufficient
> by the WCAG Working Group for meeting success criterion XXX."
>
> I find this wording confusing, since I'm never sure it means that you
> must use all of the techniques, or whether using any one will do. Can
> I propose that we change this text to one of the following, as
> appropriate for the SC:"
>
> <proposal1>
>
> Any of the following techniques is deemed to be sufficient by the WCAG
> Working Group for meeting success criterion XXX."
>
> </proposal1>
>
> <proposal2>
>
> Applying all of the following techniques is deemed to be sufficient by
> the WCAG Working Group for meeting success criterion XXX."
>
> </proposal2>
>
>
>
> Loretta Guarino Reid
>
> lguarino@adobe.com
>
> Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 21:44:33 UTC