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

Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:20:24 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010321131528.00b80100@localhost>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
what about languages other than English?  Do we know of tests to run on 
written text in Japanese? Chinese? German? Finnish? Spanish? Hebrew? 
Arabic?  How do the tests differ between dialects?

Addressing the process used to determine if a site is accessible is very 
important.  When I presented to a group at the U. of Wisconsin a couple 
weeks ago, they said one of the biggest lessons they learned was about the 
process that I use to determine if a site is accessible.  This includes 
which tools I use and how I use them and most importantly, what questions 
do I ask myself as I go through a site.  This process has not been 
documented for WCAG 1.0 and should definitely be part of making the 
requirements clear for WCAG 2.0. This gets back to a testing checkpoint 
that Len suggested.  Perhaps we list tests that an author or evaluator must 
run:
1. spelling
2. reading level or grammar check
3. validate syntax
4. lists of questions to ask:...

I'm not sure where this fits in.  Is it a checkpoint?  Is it a 
technique?  Regardless, something like this would be valuable and something 
I get requests for all the time.

Thoughts?
--wendy


At 05:01 PM 3/14/01 , you wrote:
>Kynn,
>
>         I've exerpted from your note to Al:
>
>At 07:35 AM 3/14/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> >At risk of beating a drum, I really need to emphasize that the above
> >description -- which has been used by a number of people to illustrate
> >the problem -- is incomplete because it is really only along one
> >axis.  There are -numerous- reasons to try to communicate, and applying
> >a fog index (e.g.) to -every- form of written or verbal communication
> >is improper.  E.g., editorials, advertisements, parodies, humor,
> >fiction, and a vast number of other content types are even -harder-
> >to apply such a standard to.
>
>First of all, Kynn, a reading level index is NOT a fog index. It will not
>point out stupid word choices, or unsupported claims. Reading levels are
>used in all areas of education, and routinely include parodies, humor, and
>fiction. Even advertisements (if they have enough words in them to
>measure), have been tailored for young readers as well as their parents and
>grandparents... Even the ubitquitous Weekly Reader mags include editorials
>and think pieces aimed at children just learning to read. The Reader's
>Digest, which is aimed at the average reading levels, has pages of jokes
>that can be read without having a sheepskin on the wall!
>
>Yes, there is a mindset in all this, a mindset that, for me at least
>boggles at the resistance to setting a checkpoint that ensures that general
>content will be readable by a general audience. Not all disabilities are
>aided by the slick "devices" that make the web possible by varying the
>presentations possibilities. Sometimes it is the mundane, everyday stuff,
>such as reading level and illustrations that carry the day. Never
>underestimate the value of getting some mud under your nails ...
>
>         .... From warm and sunny Virginia where the bulbs are 
> blooming,  the temp
>is in the sixties and seventies, and the itch to get into the garden is
>rampant....
>
>                                         Anne
>
>                                                 Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>Anne Pemberton
>apembert@erols.com
>
>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 13:08:16 GMT

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