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

Re: Sifting the gold

From: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 06:30:33 +0100
Message-ID: <013001c20c52$1deedc40$218e27d9@RJCHETWYND>
To: <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
In so far as it is possible it would be helpful, and perhaps a measure of ones success if the most publicly accessible (AAA) documents ranked highest in a search.

It seems hard to imagine that this wont be achieved

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:21 AM
  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.


  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 01:31:46 UTC

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