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

RE: 4.1 expert, general and non-reader

From: by way of Wendy A Chisholm <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:13:09 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020605131259.00aa3af0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org



An EXAMPLE...

Original term: This Agreement and the benefits and advantages herein
contained are personal to the Member and shall not be sold, assigned or
transferred by the Member.

New term: Membership is not transferable.

done with ruby

<ruby>
<rb>This Agreement and the benefits and advantages herein contained are
personal to the Member and shall not be sold, assigned or transferred by the
Member.</rb>
  <rt class="http://ubaccess.com/simple">Membership is not transferable</rt>
</ruby>

the rt element can be rendered alongside, or instead of, the rb content.


In the new markup you could leave the sentence as is. So long as you have
meta data linked to a lexicon and are using the primary meaning of each
word.

A client side tool could then remove redundancy to simplify the wording. It
could potentially come out as:
"this contract and the good in it, is owned by you, and you can not sell it"

this took me too levels of changes. A treasures change, and then grammar
rules,  and then removing redundancy

It also assumes that the author took the trouble to link to a simplifying
lexicon such that specified the defined term member

now with the mark up added to the links
you could mark up the sentence

This Agreement <slice essential =0.1> and the benefits and advantages herein
contained </slice><slice essential =0.2> are personal to the Member</slice>
and shall not be sold, assigned or transferred by the <slice lexicon =
"ubaccess.com/membership.rdf>Member</slice>
  to get to (potentially)....

"you can not sell this contract"

at the user end.


That is the general idea.



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:12 PM
To: Lisa Seeman; jonathan chetwynd; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: 4.1 expert, general and non-reader



Lisa,
Could you post a sample document with simplified content in ruby or your
new markup? I'd like very much to see how this works.  If you've done so
before and I missed it, my apologies in advance.
Thanks,
Cynthia


-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:30 AM
To: jonathan chetwynd; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: 4.1 expert, general and non-reader




This is something I was working out with Jason.

What is required by which site.

In ideal terms I would say that the only thing you are guarantied is the
ability to understand the subject matter.

Thus, figure out what cognitive skills are required for understanding of
the meaning of the page, assume nothing else.

So if the subject matter takes intelligence (an programming for example)
then assume intelligence, but not literacy or the ability to understand
non-visual or literal information. A lot of Engineers are LD and have
some autistic related impair mats (Asperses syndrome for example may be
especially prevalent among engineers)

A shopping site should assume that their audience understands what it
means to shop, and pay, for items.

If you are making a philosophy paper then you can assume the audience
has intelligence and the ability to understand abstract non visual
concepts. However one can still have hyperactivity or dyslexia and be in
the audience. Ironically I (an heavy dyslexic) have a love of
linguistics, and the roots and formation of language, So I guess
dyslexia is everywhere. Hmm I guess word game sites can forget about us.
(ever plaid scrabble with me - no
rules)


In practical terms of course there is something else going on. We live
in a system of academic legitimization that is, to a large extent,
dependent on literacy skills. So people in academia, with communication
and learning disorders that effect literacy, must have gotten around it
somehow. I chose engineering, for example, in part because less literacy
is required to complete a degree. Does that mean i can not understand
philosophy? Absolutely not. It does mean that I would not have gotten
into a philosophy degree course without English or history A levels, and
I could not get them.

However the internet is and can do a lot to change that. I know, for
example, a lot about disabilities and accessibility without having read
a book on the matter. Adult education sites "should" (my opinion) be
working to change this exclusion.

So I think you need to work out what cognition skills are required to be
interested (not qualified) in a subject and then you can assume that
your audience has thoughs skills. If we go with this approach, then we
need to construct a complete list.


Please note that in asking people to use simpler words:
-  this is only when meaning is not affected
- and this can be achieved through rendering markup (such as ruby or the
markup I am working on)

In engineering were a high frequency is not exactly the same thing as
"often", high frequency is the right term.



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of jonathan chetwynd
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 10:08 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: 4.1 expert, general and non-reader



I think it is important that user testing is the criteria, who is to say
for whom the material is intended. This is too easy a let out, and
demeans us all.

Every topic worth discussing has a nugget that is of general interest,
and that is what we should encourage to be made available. or  obscure
papers that have nothing to communicate to everyone, will to my mind
never attain this. and why should they.

2 examples (backed by user testing) that clearly might have a level 3
conformance.

many people have heard of einstein,  know of atomic weapons, and thus of
the relation between mass and energy,  a few could possibly quote his
formula.

a more concrete example is http://www.respond.org.uk/help/index.html

this is a brief document for 'discussion', it tries to reduce what is a
very complex issue, that of personal relationships, to a few words.
Obviously there are far more weighty tomes on the issues discussed, and
yet they would be the more valuable if they contributed something to
this version. Responsible authorities seeking level 3 conformance, are
well able to create such a digest, and should be required to.

Evidently one needs some means of identifying who the users might be,
and that remains to be discussed expert, general, and non-reader(less
than 30 words per page), may be a reasonable reflection of our 3 levels
of conformance, for the present.


thanks

jonathan


---
Incoming 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

---
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

---
Incoming 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

---
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 13:06:48 GMT

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