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

Re: forwarded message from Joe Clark

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 07:31:39 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010811064442.00a29da0@pop.erols.com>
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I've read thru Joe's rewrite, and I like the idea of being able to read all 
the guidelines in one screen, but I'm unhappy with several checkpoint. This 
one really frosted my cookies

3.4 Wherever possible, use a wide range of modes of expression.
       Note: This too is the only rendition that makes sense.

The purpose of 3.4 is to encourage page authors to include graphics and 
multi-media to the content, not to tell writers to include various types of 
expression in the text, which is what you have said.

There are at least three types of "modes of expression" that we want the 
author to include: graphics, sound and/or multi-media. I know of no one who 
would recognize such an intent from the "mode of expression" used. The 
newest addition to these "modes" would be touch, which should probably be 
listed also, since it is likely to be more developed and usable in a year 
or two.

Try:

3.4 Illustrate your text content.


Some other points that stick:

1.4 Identify the primary language of text and text equivalents and all 
changes in language.
       Note: I dropped human and natural completely. Neither is necessary, 
frankly.

It is redundant to say both "text" and "text equivalents". Also, shouldn't 
this be expanded to include identification of the primary language in sound 
files and multi-media.


3.3 Write as simply as possible in a way that remains appropriate for the 
site’s content.
       Note: This is the only rendition that makes sense.


You chose to drop  "clearly". Why? Writing simply may not be clear, and 
clear writing may not be simple.
If you must choose, choose  "clearly" as it is the more universally helpful 
of the two. Further, the reason for the
guideline is to improve usability to an intended audience. It has nothing 
to do with appropriateness for the content, it should address the 
appropriateness for the user.

1.2 When using time-based presentations, synchronize any accessible 
equivalents.
4.4 Design content so that, when presentation effects are turned off or not 
supported, the content is still usable.

There two checkpoints could benefit from a "when possible" at the 
beginning, as the could impose an undue hardship on the use of media that 
is beneficial for many disabled folks.

                                                                 Anne


>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:57:31 -0400
>
>At the suggestion of Wendy Chisholm, I made a first attempt at rewriting 
>just the checkpoints of WCAG 2.0 in much plainer English. My rewriting of 
>some points is the first rendition that actually makes sense. Other points 
>cannot be simplified because the intrinsic concepts are more advanced-- 
>or, seen differently, fixing them properly would have required 
>intervention far earlier on in the process to alter the underlying thinking.
>
>HTML file attached.
>--
>         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
>         <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2001 07:35:55 GMT

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