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

RE: fancy talk about "plain language" [was: RE: Proposed 4.1 wo rding ...]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
cc: WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208300638000.12688-100000@tux.w3.org>

Actually I like "easily understood" as much as I do plain language. The first
is simple to translate, which is a helpful guide.

I was not aware that we had consensus on the decision to assume that 4.1
covers presentation methods, structure of content etc. I think that is a bad
idea for the reasons I outlined earlier -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0216 - mostly that
the implementation and testing strategies are very different.

cheers

Chaals

>At 08:13 AM 2002-08-29, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>>Hmmmmm
>>
>>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.
>
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 06:42:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT