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

RE: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:43:48 -0700
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Cc: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <002101c2498e$225b7d00$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

Let  me explain why I liked my proposal.

One of the problems we came across in setting 4.1 criteria was how widely
applicable each criteria is, especially when we have made them testable,
which removes  vaigness such as "aviode" or "reduce".

For example: Can we require short words on a disertation? can we require
"providing summaries" on an ecommerce site or download page.
The result was that we alowed a title to suffice as a summary. But a clear
title should be a separate item as it is so often an inadequate Summary.
The result is we were left with very few and  inadequate   level one
criteria for 4.1. - a good title and that was about it.

By requiring a percentage of items at different levels (what ever percentage
we find works), we can  create criteria more specific and testable - and
have them included in some way at level one. We could word the requirement
that the web author should select the X% of items that they consider the
most appropriate and helpful for their content (not just the easiest)

It is a practical suggestion, biased on the real concerns of addressing 4.1
success criteria level. Not a theoretical suggestion.
This is a way of allowing more items to be included in  level 1, and Peaple
can choose items that are relevant to their site.

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

http://www.UBaccess.com



-----Original Message-----
From: john_slatin [mailto:john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:32 AM
To: 'Lisa Seeman'; john_slatin
Subject: RE: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal


Thanks, Lisa.  I apologize for not having provided a rationale.  Here goes:

All of the items that Avi listed can help authors make their work more
understandable.  But I don't think they're all equal, so I worry that merely
counting them won't be as effective as carefull choosing the ones that are
most likely to have impact for a particular document.


So it might be useful to assign certain items in the list to the various
conformance levels.  For example, providing summaries and using bulleted
lists instead of long, comma-separated series might be well placed at
minimum level, while using grammar and syntax that support translatability
might be a level 3 item.

John



John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:07 pm
To: 'john_slatin'
Subject: RE: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal



>but it seems too mechanical a solution to be truly
effective.
 What does that mean in practice?
Why

all the best,
Lisa


John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:09 pm
To: 'Avi Arditti'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se; 'Lisa Seeman'
Subject: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal



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 13:43:51 GMT

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