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

Re: Semantic pragmatic

From: seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:06:57 -0700
Message-ID: <012b01bfe0c7$124b6d30$97f4a8c0@dev1>
To: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think that there is a general trend in writing to be more colloquial and,
well, fun. Take the way manuals have evolved, from the dry text books to the
"machine code for dummies" stile of writing.
Just take that fraise "for dummies" that is not literally intended. It
probably means "made friendly".

But all this is not the point. The question is, would such a checkpoint
help. and should we make it.

Again I know that example I made is not the ideal solution, just an example
of a possible direction.

The essence of the issue is - Is this a problem we need to address. And if
so - let us do it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: "seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access.
Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Semantic pragmatic


> Lisa,
>
> I know of with such children - often autistic folks have this
> characteristic, but do not know what you mean when you say:
>
> >As authors try to make  content
> >more user friendly this content becomes less >accessible to  them.
>
> How does making a site more user friendly result in reducing accessibility
> to these users? I hope you are not thinking that an author is going to
toss
> in some jokes to make his content more user friendly?
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
>
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 16:13:04 GMT

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