checkpoint 4.1

Lisa suggested

 

"Use clear and simple language as possible for content"

 

Which drops the phrase "intended audience"  

I think we need to keep that thought in the success criteria but I worry
about it being in the checkpoint.

 

So why don't we drop "intended audience"  from the checkpoint and use
Lisa's wording.

Then incorporate  "intended audience"into the success criteria as
appropriate.

 

Here is my rationale for this.

 


Rationale for dropping it from checkpoint.


 Including "intended audience" in the checkpoint just asks authors to
look at it and claim that their audience is visual.   --  No matter what
we say in the fine print or checkpoints.


 


Rationale for incorporating it in the success criteria.


 

1) Just basing success criteria on 'lowest possible for content" could
be interpreted to say that we can publish "physics for poets" documents,
but not "physics for physicists". 

2) requiring physicists to figure out how to do "Physics for poets" to
accompany their treatises is not realistic.  

3) you would need to write a physics book for people at multiple levels
of cognitions (e.g. IQ 100, 80, 60, 40, 20 etc.)    since for each level
you throw away information --  and having something that worked for
physicists along with a document targeted all the way down at  IQ 20
would not be seen as useful. 

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Gregg

 

------------------------------------

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.

Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis

gv@trace.wisc.edu

 

 

 

 

-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>