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: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:13:50 -0400
To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Avi Arditti'" <aardit@voanews.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se
Message-id: <000101c24f55$8b6ee3f0$b6356880@GV6101>


I think using a term  like  "plain language"  to mean more than language
(that is, including structure,  formatting,  illustration and all other
things that can be used to make writing easier to understand).  

"plain language"   may be a term of art in some field,  but I would
think we might chose a term that translates more directly from the words
used to the meaning we intend.   



Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
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
I think it implies all the considerations that we had in wording this
checkpoint. If using simpler word has changed the meaning of the
then you are not using plain language, but rubbish (be it simple
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
criteria that we have been working on at all. But does follow the spirit
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
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
of the elements listed below,
success criteria  level two: Implementing half elements listed below,
success criteria  level three : Implementing all the elements listed
( the whole thing) OR a format/extra information that allowed automatic
correct conversion to plain language (yup - ILS).

Then we need only include in the list testable criteria, but with no
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
not be applied across the board. If this is not the case, then 1/4 is
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


-----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 Thursday, 29 August 2002 08:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC