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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:48:09 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

    Marti, I don't think the point of writing a physics thesis is to
publish it on the web. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that
the decision to get the degree would be based on the thesis itself, not on
it's web presentation.  Also, a physic thesis isn't gonig to have the
general public as an audience, any more than trade journals will. Web sites
that have highly specialized or limited audiences probably need exceptions
to a variety of the requirements we make for accessibility, not just the
reading level. 

	If the Tax Code was put on the web, it would be a quoted item and not need
to be readable but to it's specialized audience ... on the other hand,
pages that explain, instruct, and otherwise aide in understanding the tax
code should bend over backwards to be accessible in all areas and
especially reading level. 



At 07:53 AM 3/13/01 -0500, Marti wrote:
>While I can certainly see the point about government websites (and
>documents, anybody try to read the Tax Code lately?) I don't see how an
>average reading level requirement can be applied to something like a Physics
>Thesis.  While such a document 'might' be written at a 6th-8th grade reading
>level, I doubt the author would get the degree.
>It there a way to perhaps distinguish between things written for the web and
>things that are "also published" on the web?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
>To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
>Cc: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:47 AM
>Subject: Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
>> William,
>> I'm not sure on this, but I think material needs to be published, or at
>> least completed before it is copyrighted, so content that is being worked
>> on to include in a page, is not yet copyrighted. And, it would be best if
>> it were copyrighted at an average reading level. Content that presumes
>> pre-knowledge isn't exempt from requiring an average reading level, and
>> it's no more difficult to do than any other content. Poetry can be treated
>> as a "quote", and sarcasm is either readable and understandable, or it
>> fails, so it can be included under the content that must be understandable
>> to be accessible.
>> Anne
>> At 07:00 PM 3/12/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>> >At 05:12 PM 3/12/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>> >>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
>> >>... which is sorta about 6th - 8th grade level ...
>> >
>> >All material is copyrighted. :)  This rewrite proposal fails
>> >immediately on those grounds.
>> >
>> >Also, you completely ignore the technical aspects required by
>> >some writing -- you made no exception for works that require
>> >specific pre-knowledge.
>> >
>> >Finally, you don't address how to handle works that are SPECIFICALLY
>> >meant to be unclear, such as poetry or sarcasm.
>> >
>> >--Kynn
>> >
>> >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
>> >Technical Developer Liaison
>> >Reef North America
>> >Tel +1 949-567-7006
>> >________________________________________
>> >________________________________________
>> >http://www.reef.com
>> >
>> >
>> Anne Pemberton
>> apembert@erols.com
>> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 17:43:50 UTC

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