Thread Subject: Re: Short Names Proposal

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 5:50 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Short Names Proposal"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Gregg,

Thanks for taking a stab at this. I think it's important to get some
"working" labels/short names/whatever as soon as possible as I find it
impossible to work with the numbers. And, as you say, as we move things
around, it will be impossible to retrace our discussions to what we end up
with.

I think that it is more important to have some working labels and that what
the labels are is less important at this point so I don't want to spend a
lot of time debating them. I made a slight edit to your proposal, changing
"API" to "AT Interoperability"

Andi




"Gregg
Vanderheiden"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'"
06/06/2007 03:52 < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
PM >
cc

Subject
Short Names Proposal













All of the Subgroups were asked to propose short names for their
provisions.

As a part of an exercise for two of my students I had them go through and
read all the provisions and suggest short names for them.

There were a couple ways to do short names.

1. try to capture the meaning of the provision
2. have a word or short phrase
* to use as a quick handle to talk about items (and track them as
they move)
* to cue you into the general topic of the provision
* to NOT try to capture the meaning of the provision


After having done this in WCAG I recommend that we use the second approach.

RATIONALE:
Trying to capture the meaning of the provision in a short phrase has the
following problems.
1. We should already make the provisions as short as we can and be
accurate. Thus a shorter one wouldn’t be accurate.
2. People start using the short names as the guidelines
3. The short name and long provision can start to fight each other
4. You can generate just as much discussion on the short name wording as
the full provision.


In WCAG we therefore just went with simple handles that ranged from 1 word
(where possible) to a short phrase. NONE had verbs.


The results of the students work and a quick review by me for accuracy can
be found at
http://teitac.org/wiki/SHORT_NAME_PROPOSAL

The students also came up with some interesting observations and issues
which i will post separately to the groups that are involved with the
provisions.

To make it easier for groups to review I marked which groups we designated
(on the EWG page) to go with each provision.

Groups are free to use or change these. Just done for convenience since –
if we start moving things around – it is much better to have short names
for things than to use numbers which can change.

(PS probably should approve or change and tell EWG so they can update
official pages.) the proposal page is NOT OFFICIAL. )

Gregg

------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/




_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Short Names Proposal"