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 09:41:45 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <016a01c1cab6$58967ac0$2991003e@dev1>
Again, this is going places.
comments inline
> >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
>
> Perhaps we should break page titles out as a separate success
> criterion. After all, good page titles ought to be a requirement for
> all pages.

good idea

>Then we could further refine the success criterion that
> requires summaries or outlines. For instance, we could say that pages
> containing more than [x amount] of text should be accompanied by a
> summary or outline, but for shorter pages it is not necessary. I
> don't know what the limit would be. Five paragraphs? One screen-full
> at 800 x 600 in default font size?
>
Maybe, -if consepts in the page are included in the title - or somthing like
that. In other words, if a table of content is on a page titled table of
content, then ther is no new content, just details or information about that
consept.
The same is true for a product isting page titled "product listing"
It is not tue for a page titled " discussionb omn checkpoint 3.3"
that would require a summary.

> >Can you give me an example of a paragraphed of more then five sentences,
> >that
> >could not be broken up?
>
>
> I can. This paragraph is an example. It is short. In fact, it is only
> two lines long. It makes only one point. Yet it does do in six
> sentences.

cool, maybe we could do it interms of word count. Can a paragrafe be clear
if it is nore then 150 words long?


> >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.
>
> I do not believe these tools are equal to that task yet.... >At present,
> though, their tendency to translate word-by-word will produce an
> overwhelming surplus of false positives if we try to use them for
> this kind of testing.
>
> Not that it wouldn't be fun.

I think that is the point they translate it litraly, andif it comes back
lodercrase then it is not a sentece that makes sence when read litraly.
>
> >I think that the more commonly used a word is, more easily it is
understood.
>
> Not necessarily. Take, for example, the scariest sentence commonly
> heard in the English language:
>
> "The plane will be in the air momentarily."
children seem to gain aproximatly the same first 500 words followed by the
same next 2000 words. If one three year old with a five humndred word
vocablery understand what you are saying the next one will to. It will vairy
a bit by location but the principle is there.

I am preety sure that this data is documented somwere. It is often quoted in
child raiseng books.

How about " if a Thesaurus subvsitution can be made with a word in the
"first 500" or "first 2000" - use that. (This is assuming that the
subsitution does not degrade the meaning of the sentence. )

This is machtien testible, we just need the tool to highlight each word were
this is the case and suggest a subsitution, a bit like a speal checker.
I could proberbly even find a student to do build it as a final year
project. It might even be ready at about the same time as WACG 2.

Doese that help your dreams along?

>The reader can
> choose to have an NCI web page displayed in "normal" mode or
> "dictionary" mode. In dictionary mode, specialized terms are
> highlighted and hyperlinked to definitions from a variety of sources.
> I believe the system uses pop-up windows; it's been a long time since
> I played with it.

This is like the acsample by Charles at the last FTF using RUBY. ALternitve
renderings. Thats what I say.
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 02:50:15 GMT

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