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

Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:56:08 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:22 PM 3/12/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>         I understand your point, but the other side of the coin burns. A few weeks
>ago I was in a heated discussion with a webmaster of a government services
>site. He maintained that his web site is "accessible" even tho the audience
>of the web site is unemployed disabled persons who have graduated high
>school or have a strong chance to do so. The site is written at a 12th
>grade reading level, which is way too high for the audience. The site of
>course is devoid of any illustrations, mark-up, or any reading aids. Yet,
>the site is, by guidelines 1.0 P1, "accessible" ... 

Then it's a poorly written web site.  It's one that doesn't know
how to write for its audience.  And it violates a lot of OTHER
checkpoints other than just "write well" in the draft WCAG 2.0.

Is it an accessibility error if I am writing a page for Americans
and I write it in German?  No, it's really a case of content written
poorly, no matter what the medium, without any regard for the

>         Don't throw out the checkpoint.

Why not?

You described a specific page written for a specific audience,
which does not take into account that audience's needs.  That does
not extrapolate to a general rule, and when we are writing
checkpoints, we are writing general rules.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Tel +1 949-567-7006
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 22:04:56 UTC

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