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

Re: Wording issues

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:01:13 +1000
Message-ID: <15227.14201.681370.58228@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Joe Clark writes:
 > In the current draft:
 > 
 > >           + [32]Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents
 > >             with time-dependent presentations.
 > 
 > What you likely mean to say:
 > 
 > 	When using time-dependent presentations,
 > 	provide synchronized media equivalents.
Or one can use the existing wording and change "with" to "for" as in
 > checkpoint 1.1.
 > 
 > >           + [35]Checkpoint 1.5 Separate content and structure from
 > >             presentation.
 > 
 > "Separate content and structure" can still be read as a noun phrase. 
No it can't be. If it were read as a noun phrase, there would be no
verb in the sentence, which would hence be ungrammatical. Only one
interpretation yields a grammatical sentence. Furthermore, treating it
as a noun phrase yields no semantic ambiguity; it simply makes the
sentence ungrammatical.
 > >           + [40]Checkpoint 2.4 Either give users control over how long
 > >             they can interact with content that requires a timed response
 > >             or give them as much time as possible.
 > 
 > I don't see how the last part makes any sense. "As much time as 
 > possible" can easily mean "no time limit," which nullifies the entire 
 > premise. Or a designer may get all huffy and say "Well, *I* think 
 > it's possible to respond within five seconds, so that's all anybody's 
 > getting." One person's possibility is another person's impossibility.
 > 
 > I think you really mean:
 > 
 > 	When content requires a timed response,
 > 	either give the user control over how long
 > 	they can interact with the content
 > 	or give them as much time as possible.
 > 
 > But I really think you *mean* to say "It is preferable never to 
 > require a timed response."
The ambiguity in the present formulation of the checkpoint is the
 > result of a compromise between allowing users to suppress all
 > time-dependent changes and permitting the imposition of time limits
 > that make interaction impossible for identifiable groups. The issue
 > wasn't resolved satisfactorily, hence the ambiguity in the
 > checkpoint, and I suspect it will have to be revisited (for the
 > moment it stands as an open issue).
 > 
 > >           + [47]Checkpoint 3.3 Write as clearly and simply as is possible
 > >             and appropriate for the site's content.
 > 
 > Or:
 > 
 > 	Write as clearly and simply as possible
 > 	in a way that is appropriate for the site's content.
 > 
 > You'll spend the rest of your lives arguing over whether or not 
 > "appropriate" is an adverb (indicative of the level of help WCAG 
 > needs with writing). This way there is no such debate.
The suggested alternative only makes the sentence harder to interpret
 > and resolves no ambiguity.
 > 
 > >           + [48]Checkpoint 3.4 Supplement text with non-text content.
 > 
 > *wherever possible*.
This one is still an open issue.
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 23:07:03 GMT

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