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

Re: Clear and simple writing

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:13:19 -0800
Cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <017401c17861$e38c7b40$d094003e@dev1>
>   In #18 we may be going overboard in our quest for measurability.
>   Sentences can be short and clear while technically containing more
>   than one relative clause, and I would rather see this advice in
>   Techniques than in a normative document.


We had in mind limiting this one for instructions. I think criteria for
instructions can/should be more figures.

OK let me explain that instead of being obscure.

For example: I got a visa over the internet. There were quite a few lines
and steps involved, but it saved me half a day.

It seems ridicules, that someone with cognitive disabilities should be bared
from using online services such as this because the instructions are
confusing.

If instructions are step by step, with one relative clause in each step,
with illustrations, well, it is probably accessible to anyone who could
theoretically understand the information.


 All the best,
Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Jo Miller" <jo@bendingline.com>
Cc: "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: Clear and simple writing


> Yes, clearly we are working at the basics here, and there are people who
will
> know better (and maybe even more who will claim they do). #18 is a success
> criterion for #13, which is not measurable although it does seem more
useful
> to me for that. I suspect that we need to work out some concrete thigns
that
> we can call success criteria, and then we can work out which are the
> important ones...
>
> By the way, I updated the page a bit to explain what it is about (and
start
> to explain what it isn't...)
>
> cheers
>
> Charles
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Jo Miller wrote:
>
>   Chaals,
> [snip]
>   I'm very happy with #20.
>
>   #2 may be overly restrictive by insisting that the topic sentence
>   invariably be the first sentence (I'm not sure this is appropriate
>   for all languages). However, I suppose it's probably good to  have a
>   firm, clear criterion like this for average and weak writers; the
>   good writers who already know how to write clearly (all twelve of
>   them) are going to ignore or bend any criteria that don't suit them
>   anyway.
>
>   In #18 we may be going overboard in our quest for measurability.
>   Sentences can be short and clear while technically containing more
>   than one relative clause, and I would rather see this advice in
>   Techniques than in a normative document.
>
>   #13 is more useful than #18, though someone might argue that #13 is
>   not sufficiently measurable.
>
>   >CMN wrote
>   >Although this is a tricky area, and the four of us aren't the world's
>   >greatest experst, we came up with some ideas, which I have written up
in the
>   >following page: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/334-wcag
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 08:12:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT