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

Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:42:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Cc: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.21.0103121721370.10454-100000@byz.org>
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:
> 		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 ...

I was a journalism major, and I would have a hard time going over my sites
to determine how appropriate their content would be, relative to media
style guidelines (of which there are many, and none of them normative).

And we're not dealing with professional writers. Many content providers
may never have even had formal composition. It's unworkable.

> 	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!) 

I don't have that on Word 97. I don't think the W3C would like to
require Microsoft Word or FrontPage as authoring tools, anyway. Even if
they did, arriving within some chosen acceptable range doesn't ensure it's
accessible in any manner like 1.1 makes non-text objects accessible.

I won't go into the trouble with legacy content compliance, though I
reserve that right in advance.

Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 20:44:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC