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

Re: 3.3 action !

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 08:57:56 -0800
To: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <004201c1ad9d$186a87b0$b395003e@dev1>
For this checkpoint it is important to read our mandate. Otherwise we will never include it. If we do not like our mandate then it is that that we must change.

Also we are producing guidelines to aid accessibility, but we are not policy makers. The policy makers must chouse what checkpoints are appropriate for their situation.

I think a journal can and should comply to this checkpoint. It does not stipulate that the content has to be trivial, but that the stylistic chouses should be accessible. People capable of understanding the content should be given access to it and not bard by unnecessary use of unclear style.

We could add that were the purpose of a page is informative and not stylistic. so that a uploaded version of Shakespeare still complies, but I think that that is included in the statement "appropriate for the content". That should be clear that a review of Shakespeare will contain quotes that are unclear. However the review and explanation should attempt to be clear.



--- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Regan 
  To: _W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List 
  Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:27 AM
  Subject: RE: 3.3 action !


  I realize the importance of what is trying to be accomplished here. Lisa has done a fantastic job summarizing criteria I have heard discussed over the last few years. 

   

  However, I am wondering if this checkpoint is inherently fraught with difficulty. Are assumptions inherent in the success criteria that we must consider? Are we presuming that each piece of content is instructional in nature?

   

  For example, is it possible for a piece of fiction to comply? While the language in the checkpoint allows for context, the language of the success criteria is much more specific. How can the success criteria be communicated to publishers of fiction on the web?

   

  Similarly, I edit an online journal for educators in Portuguese speaking countries. The journal articles we published are from established scholars whose work frequently is not easily summarized or even understood. Is it possible for this journal to comply?

   

  My more general concern with this checkpoint is that once it is dismissed as not feasible, it casts a shadow over the other checkpoints as well. This attempt at constructing success criteria, while very accurately capturing the goals inherent in the checkpoint also points to the broader difficulty with the checkpoint itself. 

   

  I would encourage us to writing a much broader description that points to understanding a page's audience and highlights issues for folks with cognitive disabilities or else reconsidering the checkpoint altogether. 

   

  Cheers,

  Bob

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] 
  Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:58 PM
  To: _W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List
  Subject: Fw: 3.3 action !

   

  OK...
  this is a draft for 3.3. I think the job of making this draft was a tough one, and I have done an incomplete job, but hopefully it will move the process forward and give something for the group to work against, and see if we like the direction... (Also I am leaving in a whole bunch of controversial stuff as for the same reason)

   

  Checkpoint 3.3 Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content. 
   

  Definitions (informative) 
  Clear and simple writing requires planning and work on the level of the document each sentence and individual words. Clear and simple text has been broken up beyond the level requirements by good  markup. 

   

  A clear document has a structured flow of ideas.

   A clear document provides the flow of ideas summarized in a summary, diagram or page map  to help the user orientate themselves within the document.

  A clear document specifically states each step within the flow of ideas and does not leave stages inferred or implied.

  A clear document has an easily scanable layout with key information highlighted through presentation and positioning.

   A clear document contains tools to aid comprehension including:

           Illustrations:illustrations of instructions, illustrations of flow of concepts,  

           Support of decision making:  Provide forms element examples. Provide calculation assistance. Provide prompts for procedures, cues. Support "wizards" which offer help, simplify configuration, and assist with sequences. Structured tasks, cued sequences, and step-by-step instructions. 

           Reduction of decision making: Automated complex sequences like user registration. Reduce the need to calculate Providing forms element defaults  and make it easy to re-establish them. 

   

  Note: Loretta suggests moving this whole "provide additional support " part to an extra checkpoint. I think that that may be wise.

  A clear paragraph expresses a single idea that can be summarized by its first sentence.

  A clear paragraph has an easily scanable layout with key information highlighted through presentation, markup and positioning.

  A clear sentence contains a single point.

  A clear sentence is as short as can be used to expressed a single point.

   A clear instructions focuses on concrete rather than abstract indicators using absolute reference controls rather than relative ones.

   

  Simple word are words that easily understood. This means that words should be of short and of common usage.

  Use of jargon may be simple, were as the long term may complicate the sentence (eg: ROM or read only memory) however translations of jargon should be provided with each instance. 

  Clear words can not be misinterpreted by someone who is unfamiliar with the language or can not process metaphorical sarcastic or non literal use of language. Such unclear use of language should be marked as such.

  Clear words are meaningful and specific. 

   

  It is sufficient to provide a  mode with minimum and clear functionality that eliminates or hides what isn't necessary for completing the site's goals.

   

  Success criteria 
  Document:

  Provide overview

  For flow: look at overview ( summary, diagram, heading outline or page map)- It is possible to map the document to pieces that are in the summary 

  Highlight key information  using markup ( eg headings and emphasis) -  when the highlighted text
  stands alone does it summarize the key ideas.

   

  Paragraphs:

  Short paragraphs - Paragraghs should have with fewer than five sentences . Use lists to break up long paragraphs.
  can sentences be replaces by bullet points? If so markup sentence as a list 

  First sentence summarizes the point of each subsequent sentence - does each sentence in the paragraph directly relate to the first sentence?
  one idea per sentence- Test: replace each paragraph with a one idea sentence. Does the document
  STILL make sense?

   

  Sentence: 

  Sentence    -All:

   Use short sentences - Write sentences with 20 or fewer words and .

   Use lists to break up long sentences -can comas be replaced by bullet points? if so markup sentence as a list 

  Sentence   -Headings

  Should be meaningful out of context

  Headings should be unique

      

  Sentence - Instructional

  It should be possible to identify a graphic representation of an
   instruction. i.e. you can draw the picture.

  Each step is clearly stated. You could you represent the flow  flow chart and successfully perform a dry
  run.

  Pictorial representation should be provided of each instruction

  Use active rather than passive expressions 

  Sentences contain no more than one relative clause

  Use goal/action structure for menu prompts.

   

  Words:

  Non-literal text is identified and a literal translation is identified - 
  test by literal translating to another language and re- literal translating back. Does it make
  sense?
  Jargon that is expected should be linked to a glossary / explanation.
  Use simple words: Substitute common words for uncommon words
  (without significantly expanding the size) does not change the meaning. Note 
  that this requires a dictionary that marks the "difficulty" of a word.


  Words - anchors (links)

  hypertext anchors should be meaningful out of context

   

  Forms

  All form elements should have a default or example provided

  calculations should be performed automatically (eg severside)

  Provide definite feedback cues

  Use a two-step "select and confirm" to reduce accidental selections. (IE nothing happens when an option is selected until a confirm/go/OK button is clicked)

   

   

   

   

  To finish off: having a severe dyslexic, with real literacy problems draft this checkpoint is not without it's sense of irony. Still maybe that will make it better in the end.

  All the best,

   

  Lisa Seeman

   

  1866 654 8680
  www.GlobalFormats.com
  Widen the World Web
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 02:04:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT