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

Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:14:03 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <015c01c1cab2$7a1bb470$2991003e@dev1>

 All in all,  I enjoyed reading this one, (really pointed out what I had
 missed.)
 comments in line
>
> > Broadly speaking, written content can be divided into two types:
>
 for text in images we had said "unless the main purposes of the text is non
 semantic" or something like that. That covers both exceptions  - if it is a
 citation or if it is truly art. It also allows a web author to create an
 exception through redundancy
>
> > Questions: What is being summarized/outlined? A page? A set of pages?
> > A section of a page? Do we simply rely on the web author's common
> > sense and trust him not to over- or under-summarize?
>
 the upper limit could be every page can be summarized. For very simple
 pages,
 this can be done through a good title. (e.g. something.com's products)
 I can sometimes be at a relatively simple page, and it is something of an
 intellectual exercise to know what this page is actually about.

 Many sites have the same title for all pages. this is often less then a
 summary of the page, but a marketing thing for search engines.


 > "Use short paragraphs with no more than one main idea per paragraph."
> >"short" is a relative term (how short is short?).  We are leaving
> > it to the author to decide what is appropriate for her content.
>
 We can say that for most content five sentences is the maximum.
 If your content is exceptional, such as...(I have no idea when this is
 truly impossible) were short paragraphs are not possible, then use as short
as possible.


Can you give me an example of a paragraphed of more then five sentences,
 that could not be broken up?

> >
> > "Highlight your document's structure and its key points with
> > appropriate markup (e.g., headings and subheadings, emphases, lists)
> > to facilitate skimming and reading."
> >
> > Testable? I'd like to think that this criterion would pass the "eight
> > reasonable people" standard, but what does the rest of the group
> > think? There's certainly a subjective element here, and the question
> > of sufficiency arises. When has the author done enough to claim
> > conformance?.
> >
>
 The test I think we had marked out for it was if you just have the
highlight
 content. Does the document flow? are any key points not represented?

 That is human testable.

> > People who
> > understand the "why" are far more likely to implement this advice
> > successfully.
 absolutely the why is very important. we will get there.

> >
> > "Provide definitions for any jargon or specialized terminology used
> > in your document."
> >
> > Questions: What are the acceptable ways of fulfilling this
> > requirement? Would a link to a glossary of specialized terms suffice?
> >> "Provide explanations of figurative, metaphorical, or idiomatic uses
> > of language (for example, 'haven't seen you in donkeys' years' or
> > 'the sight tore my heart out')."
> >
> > Useful? If it is true that there are cognitive disabilities that
> > prevent people from understanding figurative language, then yes.
>
 There are. I wrote a few email to the list on this.

> > Testable? Drawing the line would be a challenge here, and deciding
> > what needs glossing and what does not might require an expert.
> > Implementation is also a big enough pain in the ass that, practically
> > speaking, authors are likely to ignore this criterion. That decision
> > is not our problem, as long as it does not lead them to ignore 3.3
> > entirely. "Idiom" would cover slang, as well, by the way.

 we had using a literal translation tool to a foreign language, and then
 doing
 a literal translation tool to go back to the original language. If the
 meaning is different then that is how some people will read
 it.

> >  Substitutions for mine are eagerly solicited.

 go fly a kite (not you sir)

> >
> > OK, these last two bring us to the success criteria that address word
> > choice--a thorny thicket if ever there was one....
>
>
 I think that the more commonly used a word is, more easily it is
understood.

 To make this easily testable we need a Thesaurus / dictionary that ranks
 word usage.

 I had understood that we could consider something testable even if the tool
 was not yet created for it, but could be created and assume that Bobby or
 others will follow suit, even if there is some time laps.


 All the best
 Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 02:22:38 GMT

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