W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Comments and edits for the DRAFT WCAG 2.0

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:06:24 -0500
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'William Loughborough'" <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001901c00665$cc9a4620$46806880@m700>
My point is just that complex language should never be used where more
straightforward language can be found.
(we even have a guidelines that says that!)

I will also balance that with my favorite quote from Albert
"Everything should be made as simple as possible.. but no simpler"
                              A Einstein

So lets strive to make things as simple as possible.  Not degrading them.
But making them more elegant.  More piquant. More concise. More
understandable.  Wherever we can.


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent:	Monday, August 14, 2000 9:14 PM
To:	William Loughborough
Cc:	gv@trace.wisc.edu; GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)
Subject:	Re: Comments and edits for the DRAFT WCAG 2.0

I have no problem with the principles being academic, but I think we should
try to express them in language that is a bit closer to what people speak.


On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  GV:: "my first point is that many of our principles are way too

  WL: I had hoped that would be the idea. They will almost always be in
  the context of having Guidelines and Checkpoints associated with them
  but they furnish a "lofty" view of what we're about. I seem to remember
  the words "abstract" and "general" - which almost demands "academic".

  I have no quarrel with all the rest of the (mostly
  editorial/wordsmithing issues) comments in Gregg's post. But please
  let's let the prinicples be Principles. They can say it in general
  enough terms (and abstractly enough) that they might even resound. I
  believe their brevity (and IMO clarity) trumps any complaints about
  "academic" leading to a turn-off. The casual reader (whatever that is in
  this case!) only has to look down one more line and be in a "real world"
  description of the "how" and even a bit of "what".

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 23:06:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC