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

RE: 4.1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:03:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Chris O'Kennon" <chris@vipnet.org>
cc: "''Lee Roberts ' '" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, "''w3c-wai-gl@w3.org ' '" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206091802430.15558-100000@tux.w3.org>

Nah, you'll get fired directly... Well, I hope you don't at all.

Yeah, there are a bunch of folks trying t osort this out - if we can get this
right people can do the work without being fired...

cheers

Chaals

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Chris O'Kennon wrote:

   *snicker* ...James Joyce...*snicker*

  I can't wait to apply whatever we come up with to the state of Virginia's
  site.  Hopefully I won't get fired in a vague and obtuse manner...

  Chris


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Charles McCathieNevile
  To: Chris O'Kennon
  Cc: 'Lee Roberts '; 'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org '
  Sent: 6/9/02 4:28 PM
  Subject: RE: 4.1

  Well, style and clarity are not the same things. And it appears that we
  can
  describe how to write clearly better than we can describe how to write
  "well". (Which is why there are more useful technical manuals than there
  are
  works of James Joyce).

  Chaals

  On Fri, 31 May 2002, Chris O'Kennon wrote:


     Which leads to the problem of how to determine if something has been
    written in a way that everyone can understand.  I've seen "clearly
  written"
    documents that are so poorly done as to mean multiple things from what
  was
    intended.  But you can't dictate good writing style, can you?

    Chris O'Kennon


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Lee Roberts
    To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Sent: 5/31/02 1:10 PM
    Subject: RE: 4.1


    I concur with Chaals.  However, I have the same question as before.

    If we say this, are we saying that the content must be written to a
    level
    that everyone would understand.  If a thesis, article, or scientific
    paper
    is published on the Internet so others might be able to use the
    information,
    is this then required to be easily understood by everyone?

    It seems constraining and possibly discrediting to the individual's
  work
    or
    studies. Or even discrediting to the business' research.  If we go to
    the
    library and do research on a scientific research project we expect to
    see
    tough language and concepts.  Wouldn't this also apply to the
  Internet?

    Thanks,
    Lee

    -----Original Message-----
    From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
    Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
    Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:17 AM
    To: Lisa Seeman
    Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Subject: Re: 4.1



    I think the requirement belongs, but I agree that "as the author feels
    appropriate" weakens the requirement beyond any point of usefulness.
  It
    also
    makes self-fulfilling the claim (which I do not believe as consensus)
    that
    it
    is not possible to provide relatively objective success criteria (our
    80%
    rule) for this checkpoint.

    How about "Use language that is easy to understand" as the text. This
    makes
    no comment on the complexity of the content being described, does not
    attempt
    to incorporate success criteria such as "what the author thinks is
    appropriate" into the checkpoint, and allows for success criteria to
  be
    provided as well as additional techniques to be offered.

    Cheers

    Charles

    On Fri, 31 May 2002, Lisa Seeman wrote:


      I would like to object to 4.1 (and 4.2) - write as clearly and
  simply
    as
      author feels appropriate for the content

      I would prefer that the checkpoint is omitted entirely.

      As it stands a site that is entirely inaccessible to people in terms
    of
      conforms to 4.1 can claim conformance to 4.1.
      This will serve to confuse people as to what sites are and are not
      accessible to them


      I also feel that "as appropriate for content " is offensive as most
    people
      are not thinking in terms of linguistic art, but in terms of
    abilities.

      In other words people will assume that WCAG thinks that there is
    content
      were people with severe cognitive disabilities could not understand.
  I
      prefer such a checkpoint should not be written

      Thanks
      Lisa


    --
    Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
    409
    134 136
    W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4
    92 38
    78 22
    Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
    (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis
  Cedex,
    France)




-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2002 18:03:49 GMT

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