W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Three quick ones from John S

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:02:43 -0700
Message-ID: <09c901c1ed3b$cfc21120$2502a8c0@vaio>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
comments inline.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:43 PM
  Subject: Three quick ones from John S

  Current wording:

  Comprehendible.  

  [js: Change to: Comprehensible.

  Rationale: "Comprehendible" isn't good English.]



  GV: GOOD - DONE. 



  MM: Correct me if I'm wrong, Gregg, but it seems that with "comprehendible" and "perceivable" you were trying to lead readers to the root words (comprehend, perceive), which is good for people with smaller vocabularies (a subset of which being foreign speakers). In that respect, I think that "perceivable" is a better choice, while still agreeing that "comprehensible" is better because, well, losing one letter isn't so bad, relative to its more common usage.



  Current wording:

  Technology robust

  [js: Change to: Robust technology.]





  GV:  hmmm.  This is supposed to describe the page.    So I think Technology Robust works better doesn't it?

  MM: I'm not excited about "technology robust" either. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen those words side-by-side before, anyway. <grin/> I suggested "robust" because in developer parlance it's an adjective for technology. In that context, it's nearly synonymous with flexible. Other words I think I suggested were: evergreen, timeless, durable. Of those, the only one I think that might fit the bill would be "durable".

  In thinking about it, though, perhaps the best word might be "standard". After all, part of the point of having standards is to create something that lasts.

  -

  m
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 12:02:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT