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

Re: FW: 4.1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206032134360.16738-100000@tux.w3.org>

No, we are not saying anything about the content itself. We are only
discussing the language used to express the content.

If I go to the library and find a book full of complex language and a book
full of plain language describing the same content I choose the one with the
plain language.

If I need to recommend something for other people to use I am more inclined
to think about how well the language is written. Not in terms of artistic
merit, in terms of technical use of language to convey information - sort of
like the idea of building a bridge that can carry the vehicles that are going
to cross it.

The requirement has nothing to do with the complexity of the ideas or
information being expressed. Which is why I proposed wording that doesn't
mention those things.

cheers

Chaals

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com]
  Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:10 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?

  Thanks,
  Lee

  -----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
  it
  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
  attempt
  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.

  Cheers

  Charles

  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

    Thanks
    Lisa


  --
  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,
  France)


-- 
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, France)
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 21:39:35 GMT

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