Re: [MACCAWS] Short article on selling technology

> <http://news.com.com/2010-1071-946369.html>
> 
> The article is by no means definitive, nor does in necessarily support 
> any 'side' in any of the language questions raised here (narrow vs. broad
> definition of 'code', 'browser' vs. 'user agent' vs. 'client'), but it 
> does provide the perspective of a person whose job is to relate to consumers.

I didn't comment of this before, but I'd go with the use of proper language - 
just ensure that it's explained correctly and simply (using a glossary?) and 
that the text is littered with examples.

So when we say something like:

"Blah blah blah User Agents[1] (such as web browsers, braille readers, etc) 
blah blah blah."

Glssary:
"[1] User Agents are... detailed explanation"

I would have thought that would cover the experienced (who don't need to read 
the glossary and may skim over the bracketed examples), the slightly 
experienced (who might know the stuff in brackets but read the glossary) and 
my Grandad (who would read both the brackets and the glossary).

It also means we won't be accussed of using incorrect language.


Sorry if all this got resolved ages ago,

cheers - dunstan

---------------------------
Dorset, England
http://www.maccaws.org
[making a commercial case for adopting web standards]