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

Action Item: Jason & Katie; Simpler Language Alt

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <kshea@apollo.fedworld.gov>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:48:03 -0400
To: "1 W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Message-ID: <GEEALPIJNPCKPMIJDLOBMEJIDGAA.kshea@fedworld.gov>
Hi All,
	As per last telecom, April 19th, the issues, Simpler Language
Alternative, and required tagging of some sort in metadata of:

These 4 points that follow really need to be determined by ER (a la Jason),
through RDF, CC/PP, Annotea (a la Chaals), etc.  Not us.  However, having
said that I do feel that it is up to us to explain to authors that this
functionality, through tagging, is coming. And,  exactly what each of them
mean to the human being (a la Lisa). 
		1: Summary (or other name) aimed at some yes-fuzzy
particular level (i.e.; grade school) This will require action from some
people willing to do a discovery in the education arena of designating
levels of some sort)
		2: Optimization Assertion (i.e.; this page is optimized for
low vision, or, Assert: My content is optimized for college-level English
speakers.)
		3: Simpler Language Alternative made available through links
(not necessarily reproducing entire content), and simple language summaries.
		4: Perhaps an RDF classification conformance assertion
requirement of some kind, through a combination of the above or stand alone.


FIRST - Proposed new wording of Checkpoint # 3.3:

		3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language that is
appropriate to the content (of the site), taking into account its intended
purpose.  Note: Authors should exercise caution in ensuring that the
intended audience is not defined too narrowly.

(As it is now:3.3 Write clearly and simply. 
This checkpoint addresses the need to facilitate comprehension of the
content by all readers, especially those with cognitive disabilities. It
should not be interpreted as discouraging the expression of complex or
technical ideas. However, authors should strive for clarity and simplicity
in their writing. )

Proposed new wording of Checkpoint # 3.3, only if, the specific tagging
determinations are made in the future:
		3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language that is
appropriate to the content (of the site), taking into account its intended
purpose.   Also, be sure to clearly identify that assertion of purpose
(through the summary tag or "purpose" tag?) and audience optimized for
(through the "assert" tag ?), through markup in metadata.  Note: Authors
should exercise caution in ensuring that the intended audience is not
defined too narrowly.  Note: "assert" tagging aids users when searching to
receive more relevant content.


SECOND - New Checkpoint # 3.4 (move existing 3.4 [multimedia] down 2 notches
or make it 3.8):
		3.4: For complex content (see summary checkpoint 3.5)
provide, or link to, a simpler language alternative. (Which is comparable
information on the same subject which is written at a more introductory or
elementary level.) 
		Define Simpler Language Alternative in Glossary.


Proposed New Checkpoint # 3.4, only if, the specific tagging determinations
are made in the future:
		3.4: For complex content (see summary checkpoint 3.5)
provide, or link to, and, identify in metadata markup,  a simpler language
alternative (through the "SimpLanAlt" tag?). (Which is comparable
information on the same subject which is written at a more introductory or
elementary level.) Note: Tagging aids users when searching to receive more
relevant content.
		Define Simpler Language Alternative in Glossary.

Modify checkpoint #3.5, only if, the specific tagging determinations are
made in the future:
		Summarize complex information, (added) and identify that
summary, in the metadata.
 
                  Examples of complex information: 
*	data tables, 
*	concepts that are esoteric or difficult to understand, 
*	content that involves several layers. 
	Content is considered complex if the relationships between pieces of
information are not easy to figure out. If the presentation of the
information is intended to highlight trends or relationships between
concepts, these should be explicitly stated in the summary.

	I believe that we really need to think about the library card
catalog idea that Wendy brought up.  There is no reason that our metadata
should be less rich for the sake of shorter descriptions.
	
Katie & Jason


Katie Haritos-Shea
508 Coordinator / Webmaster, CIW
NTIS/Fedworld 
Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
NTIS WebLab for Accessible Design
Room  # 2025
Springfield, Virginia, 22161
ph 703-605-6426  fax 703-605-6826
mailto:kshea@fedworld.gov
mailto:kshea@ntis.fedworld.gov




Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 15:43:03 GMT

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