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

Re: Request for clarity on Consensus Item G1

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:07:05 -0800 (PST)
To: wendy@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020127120722.29522.c000-h005.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Kia Ora Wendy
Me between (GO) and (/GO)

On Fri, 25 January 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote

> Hello,
> G1 is intended to be in synch with checkpoint 3.3
"Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the
> 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?
I don't agree with consensus item G1 as it stands.
I can't agree with it because I don't understand it.
However, I am more than happy for the document to be
> 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.
I think that we need to clearly separate 'education'
from 'guidelines'.
Otherwise we may end up not saying what we mean.
> 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?
Yes it needs clarifying for me but as stated above have
no objections to publication of the document as it

> --wendy
> 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
> >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
> >means? 
> >
> >Cheers
> >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
> /--

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Phone : +64 9 846 6995
Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 15:07:57 UTC

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