RE: Semantic-pragmatic (was Re: tone as a guildeline?)

I think this is necessary. As Jason says it is difficult to require
complete avoidance of metaphorical terminology, but perhaps we could
require that certain information avoid metaphorical language, for
example:
- information on how to use the site
- main functionality of the site
- instructions on contacting
etc. 

I think this is quite difficult and I probably don't have the brain
cells at this moment in time to give very good examples or explain
myself properly. Any ideas?

-----Original Message-----
From: jasonw [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:34 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl
Subject: Semantic-pragmatic (was Re: tone as a guildeline?)


At the face to face meeting in Melbourne Lisa mentioned the
semantic-pragmatic issue, whereby certain cognitive disabilities lead to
difficulty in understanding or appreciating metaphorical language.

Clearly this is a disability-related issue and as such should be taken
into account in our guidelines (my previous message was in no way
intended
to exclude it from consideration).

Obviously the semantic-pragmatic issue arises under checkpoint 3.3. It
would be impracticable to require everyone (in all web content) to avoid
metaphorical language altogether; but through the guidelines they should
at least become aware of this particular issue so that they can assess
the
consequences of using language in certain ways and decide whether or not
to avoid doing so.