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

I think the recommendation was that were technology allows to provide
alternates to metaphorical or non literal  language.
In Charles attachment, there was a good example of that using Ruby for
xhtml.
Are there any problems with that?

----- Original Message -----
From: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:15 PM
Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
>