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

Re: Clear and simple writing

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:51:54 -0800
Message-Id: <a05100304b8260bd5047a@[]>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:00 PM -0800 11/24/01, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>Just because that is true, There is  no need not to say that illustrations
>will help  many cognitive disabilities  (at least 12 million Americans).
>Illustrations help millions of people gain accessorily to content.

Let's also not presume that illustrations only enable understanding
for people "with cognitivie disabilities."  If we cast the debate
only in terms of "does this illustration REALLY help someone who has
a mental deficiency?" (as has already been done on this list) we
risk throwing out the baby before the bath is even drawn.

I am very worried that the vocal opponents to illustration will latch
onto any even moderately weak argument (such as inventing disability
groups which are unduly "distracted" by illustration, demanding
"dogfood", or requiring detailed explanations of "how" specific
pictures aid "the cognitively disabled") that we'll decline to
include any specific information that would benefit not only these
specific audiences but many general audiences as well.

So I'd like to see more in the way of compromise and consensus,
because while I don't have the perfect answers on how to "require"
illustration, I do see it as a valuable aid that will be necessary
to specific audiences, and I don't want to see it written out
entirely.  (And there is DEFINITELY a danger of that; find me
"clear and simple writing" in Section 508 if you disagree.)


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2001 22:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC