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

Re: Semantic pragmatic

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:00:03 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

      Comments inline ...

At 11:06 PM 6/27/00 -0700, seeman wrote:
>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".

Lisa, I puzzled over this until I remembered you are not in the US. The
word "Dummies" is used for "Dumb People" as well as for store figures.
There is not necessarily a movement from manuals to fun books, so much a
broadening of the market to include more readers and users - those who find
the manuals "inaccessible" ... 

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

If it won't help, we shouldn't do it. It would be a major chore for text
authors. Perhaps you could give it a first try. Talk to your friend who has
these children as students. Prepare two web pages that her students have to
read, one written with literary elements marked up and defined, the other
with it just straight, and ask the kids which they liked better and why. 

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

If it needs to be done, it needs to be done in markup, which means it needs
to be doable in Front Page, Word, and Word Perfect. 

Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 16:48:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC