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

RE: Sifting the gold

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:25:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7164D4266FD7B94CA59D551C7FE6618D0397110C@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
also from Lisa
The idea of alerter native or equivalent content for a lower reading
level encoded in markup such as Ruby.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU] 
	Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:22 PM
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: Sifting the gold
	
	

	Here are some of the comments I found in recent posts that I
think we should grab and hold.   They are the suggestions I could find
in the discourse.  And suggestions is what we need to work from.

	 

	Anyone with concrete suggestions please post em.   We need them
to gel all the discussion into something we can put in WCAG 2

	 

	 


	From Lisa


	Please note that in asking people to use simpler words, -  this
is only when meaning is not affected

	 

	 


	From Charles


	 

	I think Jason got the crucial point when he said that 

	we need to ensure, in applying success criteria, the condition
that the meaning is not changed.

	 

	It is OK to change the words if the author agrees that the
message is the same.

	On the other hand, if a particular change does change the
meaning, then it is not appropriate - that is a failure criteria.

	 

	And

	 

	One of the suggested success criteria from the meeting in
Melbourne was that the appropriate terms be used.

	Most of the suggestions have been to do with ways of writing a
sentence or a paragraph. They are very similar to the suggestions we
seem to accept of ways to structure a page or a collection of pages

	{GV NOTE:  I think he is saying that we should start collecting
some of the ADVICE items not as success criteria but as the list of
things you can do and should consider --- just as we did for structure
etc.  Is that right Charles? - or did I miss it.}

	 

	 


	From  Lee


	 

	The level A requirement should require writers to write
coherently so that their colleagues would understand the information. 

	 Simply because uninformed readers do not understand the
concepts of how DNA and RNA work does not mean that the scientist must
write below their field.  Even school books are written in the language
appropriate to the field of study.  School books are also written to an
assumed reading and cognitive capability, but are the primary resource
for people to start learning from.

	 

	The level AAA requirement should require writers to provide
direct links to information that will help the reader understand the
concepts and ideas being presented.  I prefer to reach supporting
information through a direct link versus digging through other resources
to get what could be linked to directly.  Bibliographies and references
in books always provide the title, author, page reference.  A link on
the Internet would have direct access to the information with a simple
link.

	 

	 

	 

	-- ------------------------------ 
	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> 

	 
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 00:26:30 GMT

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