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

Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:09:09 -0700
To: "'Avi Arditti'" <aardit@voanews.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se, "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Message-id: <005901c24957$00461310$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

I very much liked the simplification of Checkpoint 4.1 to  "Use plain
language"
I think it implies all the considerations that we had in wording this
checkpoint. If using simpler word has changed the meaning of the sentence
then you are not using plain language, but rubbish (be it simple rubbish).
Plain language implies some ((un)common since.

In terms of the success criteria, the list is still incomplete as we are
aweighting the complete list from Ben,
But its layout is interesting. It does not follow the formulary for success
criteria that we have been working on at all. But does follow the spirit of
the success criteria so eloquently described by Jason - who I will now
attempt to misquote....

Level one implies they you have attempted to address these issues, some
what. Level two is were you have taken it to a further level, and level
three is were you have done everything you could do. (sorry Jason, I just do
not have your eloquence)

Other then that I have (of course) problems with the wording of the both the
list and the success criteria. But the approach is an interesting one.

I would make the levels at (this is the new proposal bit) :
success criteria level one: Adopting consistently (Implementing ) a quarter
of the elements listed below,
success criteria  level two: Implementing half elements listed below,
success criteria  level three : Implementing all the elements listed bellow
( the whole thing) OR a format/extra information that allowed automatic and
correct conversion to plain language (yup - ILS).

Then we need only include in the list testable criteria, but with no concern
for appropriateness.

The beauty of this approach is that on every page you can find 1/4 plain
language ideas that work and are suitable, even if any one by themselves can
not be applied across the board. If this is not the case, then 1/4 is too
high and we make lower - until we get something workable.

Flexible, robust and enduring...

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

http://www.UBaccess.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Arditti [mailto:aardit@voanews.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:28 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se; Lisa Seeman
Subject: Re: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion


Greetings to all,

I would like to propose some ideas for checkpoint 4.1 in an effort to
revive and narrow the discussion. What I have written incorporates ideas
that Bengt, Lisa (by phone) and I discussed at the Linz f2f. It also
incorporates some wording from the current draft of 2.0. And it attempts
to deal with concerns raised during telecons.

I await comments and suggestions. As we say in American slang, bring it
on! (But please be judicious with the trash talk.)

Avi Arditti
Senior News Editor - Web Editor
Voice of America, Special English Branch
Washington, DC 20237 USA
(202) 619-0927 | (202) 619-2543 fax
aardit@voa.gov | www.voaspecialenglish.com | www.plainlanguage.gov
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 07:09:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT