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

Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 20:12:32 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010312201232.007c9da0@pop.erols.com>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
William,

	A stab at it ....

		Unless the content is quoted or copyrighted, it should be readable by the
"average" user as defined by the newspaper/news media (to cover listening)
... which is sorta about 6th - 8th grade level ... 

	Using a range would cover a variety of means to find out the readability
grade level of the material --- easiest is probably in Word (on the Spell
Checker ... works very well!) A Readability level could be included in such
authoring programs as Front Page (easily, since FP is in the office suite
along with Word) ... and ideally (wishfully), when you run the check, it
will tell you the reading level is too high for average American users,
about right, or easy reading/good for schoolchildren ... and, then there's
the level I need to find stuff in, which is sub-schoolchildren at primary
level ... and across the Big Puddle, Jonathon needs sub-primary level
materials ... 

	An aside point: Is there any way to convince folks who are writing web
pages that a paragraph isn't necessary to accompany a link, especially one
beginning "This link leads to ... " ARGGHHHH ... what especially
interesting is that this is said by folks who don't want to cut down the
reading level of the paragraphs because they would "insult the
intelligence" of the audience .... DUH!

						Anne

	

	



At 04:23 PM 3/12/01 -0800, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 06:22 PM 3/12/01 -0500, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>>The guidelines need to address this problem, even if it isn't the easiet 
>>one to tackle.
>
>I also think this is an important issue.
>
>Having said that I also believe that a formal "checkpoint" is not how we 
>should address this problem. I have come to believe that checkpoints should 
>be checkable, though perhaps not entirely automatically, but at least 
>sensibly. While I may agree that illustrations being called for will lead 
>to something useful/checkable/effective I am no longer persuaded that 
>anything in the checkpoint department concerning clear/simple will serve 
>much purpose.
>
>It is of course mandatory to "address this problem" and our only 
>disagreement is where/how to do so. I suggest as many of us as feel able to 
>do so, write some language to deal with this and suggest where it might 
>best be used. I think the very idea of a checkpoint is undermined by this 
>particular very important thing being where it is.
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 20:08:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT