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

FW: 4.1

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:58:09 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <NGBBILMKELPGAHMOKABGEEKJCAAA.seeman@netvision.net.il>

Well you can not prove absolutely that a alt tag is a text equivalent. But
we have spent month of work pulling out criteria that takes you there in
most cases (e.g. if a word can be replaced with an easer word -one that is
understood by a lower age grope - without changing the meaning then use

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Chris O'Kennon
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 7:37 PM
To: 'Lee Roberts '; 'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org '
Subject: RE: 4.1

 Which leads to the problem of how to determine if something has been
written in a way that everyone can understand.  I've seen "clearly written"
documents that are so poorly done as to mean multiple things from what was
intended.  But you can't dictate good writing style, can you?

Chris O'Kennon

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Roberts
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Sent: 5/31/02 1:10 PM
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
that everyone would understand.  If a thesis, article, or scientific
is published on the Internet so others might be able to use the
is this then required to be easily understood by everyone?

It seems constraining and possibly discrediting to the individual's work
studies. Or even discrediting to the business' research.  If we go to
library and do research on a scientific research project we expect to
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
makes self-fulfilling the claim (which I do not believe as consensus)
is not possible to provide relatively objective success criteria (our
rule) for this checkpoint.

How about "Use language that is easy to understand" as the text. This
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
  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
  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
  are not thinking in terms of linguistic art, but in terms of

  In other words people will assume that WCAG thinks that there is
  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
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 23:57:01 UTC

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