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

Re: 3.3 clear and simple Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:22:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108101216190.30599-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:

  GJR: while the opposite of "clearly and simply" is "obfuscatingly and
  prolixly", one should not assume that the lack of "clear and simple"
  language on a page is an attempt to drown a lack of true content underneath
  a deluge of obfuscation or an ill-conceived attempt to adopt an
  "intellectual air"

CMN absolutely. I agree that this (like working out how to illustrate things,
especially when we seem to have very few experts in graphic communication on
the group) is not easy, but I think there is expertise on the topic out
there, and that we can do better than just "be clear and simple". Providing
some idea of what that means and how to do it would be useful for people who
read the checkpoint and scratch their heads. I think it will also be useful
for us, by helping us to be a bit more precise about what things can and must
be simplified, and how to know when something is clear enough.

[snip]
GJR
  i'm also not sure whether most of the techniques that you posted to GL
  passes muster, as they strike me as very language-dependent -- unless, of
  course, we are going to modularize a "clearly and simply" techniques
  document which lists all of the basic syntaxic and best-practice rules for
  every language known to mankind...

CMN
Yes, this is an important point. As I said elsewhere I think that this does
differ between languages. For example, there are languages where the grammar
is much better codified than english (the extreme example is esperanto, but
even more common ones like german) and it is easier to make concrete
statements about it. There may be others with less precise grammar than
english (although I ahven't met one in the dozen or so languages I ahve
studied) where it will be harder.

Maybe in terms of technology-specific stuff here we should consider language
as the technology being used to create the text, and therefore those things
will vary by language.

Kipis!

Charles
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 12:22:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT