Re: ATAG 2 comment

Hi William,

Thanks a lot for your comments.

You're right that this remains confusing despite many attempts at 
clarifying the wording. We'll take a look.

Cheers,
Jan

William Loughborough wrote:
> 
> I realize I'm a bit late to the party with this, but I've been mulling 
> it over for several years and find it almost as hard to comment on as it 
> was to write this part of ATAG in the first place..
> 
> Specifically, the whole business of relative priorities is 
> dense/opaque/impenetrable and although I have no specific language that 
> will change that, it is important that further effort be expended trying 
> to make this dark thing clear.
> 
> Perhaps if you try to think of it as an English-to-English translation 
> it might help. The basic idea that the priority of something depends on 
> "external" factors should be amenable to some simplified text.
> 
> As it stands, I have always felt that it's a poster child for 
> obscurantism (or is that "obfuscation"?). I urge you to look in 
> isolation at the text starting at ["Relative Priority" Checkpoints] and 
> in particular the part labeled [Relative Priority Checkpoints in 
> Practice] and imagine yourself as someone trying to develop an 
> ATAG-compliant authoring tool. Perhaps it's my creeping senility, but it 
> just puts cognition barriers in my path to understanding what in the 
> world we are talking about here.
> 
> Love.
>

Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 19:16:48 UTC