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

RE: checkpoint 4.1

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:55:25 +0200
To: GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <NGBBILMKELPGAHMOKABGEENICAAA.seeman@netvision.net.il>
I think we are getting their.

However a lot depends on how we incorporate it into the success criteria.

I would recommend having a list of cognitive skills and asking the author to
decide which skills are required for cognition of the subject matter.
we can then have success criteria listed with links to the cognitive
impairment that they help.

And yes, we have condenses that the overall meaning of the text need not be
significantly changed.

With examples I think that this could be a powerful algorithm for meeting
writing accessible text.



I do think we need to document all the methods to aid comprehension that we
have, even the less popular ones.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:01 AM
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: 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>




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 08:53:25 GMT

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