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

Re: 3.3 action !

From: Jonathan O'Donnell <jod999@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:20:09 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <20020206102009.73658.qmail@web13903.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello Lisa and Bob

I think that this is a fantastic effort, Lisa!

I think that the success criteria are appropriate,
given the nature of the checkpoint.

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

"Write...": Identifies the checkpoint as being about
original content.

Good writers generally aim to write clearly and
simply.  _The Old Man and the Sea_, by Ernest
Hemingway, is often used as an example of this point.

We are talking about Web content.  Writing for the Web
involves a different discipline to writing for print,
for film, or for the stage.

Jonathan O'Donnell


 --- Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il> wrote: >
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. 
> 
>    
> 
=== message truncated === 

=====
Jonathan O'Donnell
mailto:jonathan.odonnell@ngv.vic.gov.au
http://purl.nla.gov.au/net/jod

http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
- Send your Valentines love online.
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 05:20:10 GMT

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