- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:09:15 -0500
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
these both seem fine to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:11 PM Subject: [Editorial] Two glossary comments Hello, I finally read the glossary of the 23 March 2001 draft [1]. I don't have any significant complaints (and will make a few minor editorial clarifications in the next draft). Two points caught my eye that I wanted to mention to the WG. 1) The definition of "documentation" reads: "Documentation refers to all information provided by the vendor about a product, including all product manuals, installation instructions, the help system, and tutorials." This sounds too normative to me. Our documentation *requirements* are expressed by Guideline 12. Those five checkpoints make requirements about (1) what must be in the documentation and (2) the accessibility of the documentation. I think the definition needs to be written in a manner that doesn't suggest that it adds requirements (e.g., that the vendor is required to write tutorials in order to conform). Also "all information provided by the vendor about a product" is far too broad. This might include press releases, TV commercials, etc. As for other features, the claimant may decide to include or exclude different pieces of documentation based on whether they conform. The only *required* documentation is that required by the checkpoints of Guideline 12. Therefore, I propose the following change to the definition: <NEW> "Documentation refers to information that supports the use of a product. This information may be found in product manuals, installation instructions, the help system, tutorials, etc. Documentation may be distributed; it may be delivered on CD-ROM or available on the Web. Refer to Guideline 12 for information about documentation requirements. </NEW> 2) We define "document source view" but we don't use it in any of the checkpoints. Checkpoint 2.2 says "provide a view of the text source." I propose to leave 2.2 as is and to delete "document source view" from the glossary. - Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010323/ -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 15:30:31 UTC