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

RE: Agenda

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:23:32 +1000 (EST)
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0209051419250.8939-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>



On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Lee Roberts wrote:

>
> I just read through the minutes for last week.  Unfortunately, I didn't see
> mention of any concensus regarding "plain language" only mention that we
> need to determine if that checkpoint should be totally focused upon content
> or the written words.

Those attending last week's call were in broad agreement with the proposal
put forward by Avi, Lisa et al., which used the expression "plain
language", but as significant contributors to this discussion weren't on
last week's teleconference, no actual consensus was formed. That is, the
discussion was deferred.

Also, note that what the checkpoint requires is defined not by the text of
the checkpoint, but by the success criteria. Thus, it doesn't much matter
what "plain language" or "easily understood language" or whatever the term
is, means to the implementor so far as conformance to the checkpoint is
concerned, as that is defined exclusively by the success criteria and not
by the checkpoint text. Of course, we want our checkpoint text to be as
descriptive and clear as possible, but the actual normative requirements
are really set forth in the success criteria - if you have implemented the
success criteria at a particular level, you have by definition satisfied
the checkpoint.
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 00:23:42 GMT

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