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

Re: Request for clarity on Consensus Item G1

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:17:27 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: goliver@accease.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

G1 is intended to be in synch with checkpoint 3.3 "Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content."  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#clear-and-simple

Our requirements document inherits the issues associated with that checkpoint.  Namely, <quote>Issue: how should an author decide what is "appropriate" for the content? What criteria are to be used in determining whether a text is written as clearly and simply as is appropriate? </quote>

There was debate on the call yesterday about changing "content" to "audience" as you suggested.  We decided to leave it as it is for now.  I think these issues are being dealt with in the threads started by Lisa in regards to checkpoint 3.3.

Do you feel that G1 needs clarifying before we can publish the Requirements document to TR or are you willing to live with it until we have sorted out the issues with checkpoint 3.3?

For the record:
My recollection is that, historically, "content" was chosen so that people who were writing technical sites could use technical language.  On the Web your audience could potentially be everyone and many sites would have difficultly writing their content in language understandable by everyone.  

The first success criterion (which also has issues) says to widen your expectations of your intended audience.  Authors will have an intended audience in mind as they write, but we are trying to educate them about others who might be visiting their site and trying to use their content.

It is similar to educating built environment businesses that people who use wheelchairs might want to get into the building.  Likewise, people who find it difficult to read might try to use a site about Physics that is likely to be written in technical language.  If you want to increase the number of people who can read your content, write as simply and clearly as possible or provide alternative materials that illustrate the ideas in simpler terms.

But, I diverge. The primary question is: does this need clarifying or may we move forward with publishing the Requirements document on TR?


At 07:04 AM 1/25/02, goliver@accease.com wrote:
>Kia Ora (Maori for Hello)
>Current consensus item G1 reads 
>G1 - Our document should be written as clearly and
>simply as is appropriate for the content, with links to
>definitions. We should go with the clearest and
>simplest language that someone can propose as long as
>it is accurate.
>I still have difficulty with the first part of the
>statement, namely
>'Our document should be written as clearly and simply
>as is appropriate for the content'
>I simply don't understand what it means.
>Could somebody please provide some clarity on what it
>Graham Oliver
>AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
>Phone : +64 9 846 6995
>Email : goliver@accease.com 

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium 
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 12:14:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC