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

RE: 4.1

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:47:05 +0200
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <NGBBILMKELPGAHMOKABGCEKICAAA.seeman@netvision.net.il>

The rule of thumb I like to use, is that is someone could access the
content, (IE: they have the potential ability to understand the content),
but they can not because of the design choices of the author (language,
style ect) then that content is not accessible.

We should also add that we have and are working on techniques to allow for
an author to write as they choose but simplify they text through markup so
that it is neither constraining nor discrediting. It would just be another
job to do. Like all the rest of accessibility checkpoints.

All the best,

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Lee Roberts
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 7:10 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 4.1

I concur with Chaals.  However, I have the same question as before.

If we say this, are we saying that the content must be written to a level
that everyone would understand.  If a thesis, article, or scientific paper
is published on the Internet so others might be able to use the information,
is this then required to be easily understood by everyone?

It seems constraining and possibly discrediting to the individual's work or
studies. Or even discrediting to the business' research.  If we go to the
library and do research on a scientific research project we expect to see
tough language and concepts.  Wouldn't this also apply to the Internet?


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:17 AM
To: Lisa Seeman
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 4.1

I think the requirement belongs, but I agree that "as the author feels
appropriate" weakens the requirement beyond any point of usefulness. It also
makes self-fulfilling the claim (which I do not believe as consensus) that
is not possible to provide relatively objective success criteria (our 80%
rule) for this checkpoint.

How about "Use language that is easy to understand" as the text. This makes
no comment on the complexity of the content being described, does not
to incorporate success criteria such as "what the author thinks is
appropriate" into the checkpoint, and allows for success criteria to be
provided as well as additional techniques to be offered.



On Fri, 31 May 2002, Lisa Seeman wrote:

  I would like to object to 4.1 (and 4.2) - write as clearly and simply as
  author feels appropriate for the content

  I would prefer that the checkpoint is omitted entirely.

  As it stands a site that is entirely inaccessible to people in terms of
  conforms to 4.1 can claim conformance to 4.1.
  This will serve to confuse people as to what sites are and are not
  accessible to them

  I also feel that "as appropriate for content " is offensive as most people
  are not thinking in terms of linguistic art, but in terms of abilities.

  In other words people will assume that WCAG thinks that there is content
  were people with severe cognitive disabilities could not understand. I
  prefer such a checkpoint should not be written


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38
78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2002 23:45:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC