- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:00:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: <jonathan.odonnell@ngv.vic.gov.au>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Moved to xtech (cause it is glossary discussion), and because there was a discussion in the AU group this week about explicitly using normative and non-normative as they are important technical terms. Please follow this thread up on the xtech list and not on WCAG. Thread starts in WCAG at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0186 (pointing to an older thread). Continues in xtech archives... The definition in the User agent guidelines seems to be a little vague. As I understand it, it could be rephrased as "the things that are included in the most concise version of the guidelines" But I don't think that is what it means. As I understand it, it means "the things that are required by the guidelines, as opposed to information that is provided to make them easier to understand. For example, the text of a checkpoint is normative, but the introduction section of the guidelines is informative, or non-normative, because it isn't part of the formal requirements of the guidelines" or something like that. I agree with Jonathan that if we are going to use thhis term (and it seems that we should) that we should provide a good clear definition based on the technical meaning normally given in standards writing. I think that where we introduce the term - for the first time in a single page version of the guidelines - we should give a very clear plain english explanation of what it means. I suggest also that the first time it appears in a single page document (e.g. there are guidelines and techniques documents that are broken into multiple web pages) we should try to find a short equivalent phrasing. For example: The techniques in this document are not normative requirements (i.e. it is not compulsory to implement them in order to claim conformance to the XXX specification), but informative, or non-normative, guidance provided by the working group. And I think that the word should be linked to the glossary wherever it appears - it is a word with a lot of different technical meanings it seems, and not a very common english word. chaals On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jonathan O'Donnell wrote: --- goliver@accease.com wrote: > In the minutes Annuska asks for a definition of > normative > Annuska you may be interested in the thread that > starts > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0101.html Hi Graham and others In that thread, Anne Pemberton describes how people in the Education discipline understand 'normative'. [1] Other disciplines have widely differing definitions. Economics: "Normative: subjective, value laden, emotional" [2] This seems to be exactly opposite to our understanding. Ethics: "...normative theory tries to tell us how things ought to be (people ought to be honest)" [3] As opposed to Descriptive theory, which "...tries to explain how things are (e.g., this paper is white)" And even studies of the future: "The word, "Normative," then, is a type of foresight that deals with preferable futures" [4] As opposed to 'plausable', or 'possible' futures. It seems that we should use it in the very strict sense of the discourse on standards, or not use it at all. The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 defines it as: "...that on which the requirements of this document depend for their most precise statement." [5] Can't we just point to that definition? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0109.html [2] http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/are012/lecture/lectur1/tsld005.htm [3] http://www.stedwards.edu/ursery/norm.htm [4] http://www.cl.uh.edu/futureweb/spaceship.html [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-normative ===== Jonathan O'Donnell mailto:jonathan.odonnell@ngv.vic.gov.au http://purl.nla.gov.au/net/jod http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo! - It's My Yahoo! Get your own! -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 08:00:52 UTC