- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 06:17:57 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001a01c62d72$de369ac0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
A few people thought of just using Web Page. We did too. Here was our thinking. The problem: We want to make our guidelines readable and future looking or future resilient at the same time. Most web units today are web pages. If we used web page and put quotation marks around "page" it would signal that we didn't necessarily mean a page We could then create a definition (that looked just like the definition of web unit) that covered The page and other units. This would make the guidelines much easier to read and understand. It would require that the user read the definition and remember the distinction. In the end we decided it was better to coin a new term and get people thinking about the future as the consider the guidelines. - Also better to have people who are not writing 'pages' know that the guidelines apply to them (and were written with them in mind as well) without having to read the definition and stretch the word "page' to cover their material. - Also doesn't instantiate the term "web page' to refer to other content for all time - Also makes it clearer that all resources that are intended to be linked to directly should meet the guidelines. Not just pages. So we went with Web Unit instead of Web "Page" even though that is easier to read. It just seemed more accurate and less of a patch. Also it didn't mislead people for simplicity. Comments welcome.
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:18:09 UTC