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