W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: what type of document do we want?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:51:11 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010408063840.032955f0@mail.gorge.net>
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:50 PM 4/7/01 +0100, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>None the less If someone can produce 30 words of 'approved' plain text, I 
>am more than happy to illustrate.

WL: OK here's 32 words - if you drop the "and" from 3.2 and 3.6 you've got 
the requested 30.


3.1 Use consistent presentation.
3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and labels.
3.3 Write clearly and simply.
3.5 Summarize complex information.
3.6 Define key terms, abbreviations, acronyms, and specialized language.
3.7 Divide information into smaller, more manageable units.

If you meant "plain text" rather than the checkpoints themselves try:

"Sounds/graphics/videos/animations can help make concepts presented in a 
Web site easier to understand, especially for people with cognitive 
disabilities or those who are unfamiliar with the language" [which 30 could 
become 28 if "in a Web site" were changed to "in Websites" - although 
"Websites" is not recognized as a "word" by my spell checker!]

which is a near-perfect candidate for self-reflexive illustration: show 'em 
what you're tellin' 'em!

Kynn might help you with techniques proven in the field of comix?

I think this is quite a challenge and I prithee luck (which is appropriate 
enough for Easter Week?).

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 09:50:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT