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

Re: 4.1 reproposed

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:47:09 -0400
Message-ID: <3D87325D.4297E084@voa.gov>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
CC: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Lisa,

Here is the compilation:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/07/checkpoint-4-1-ideas.html

As I said in my posting, this is a good source for items to incorporate
into the checklist. I didn't have time to tackle it (I was more focused
on the wording of the success criteria), so I put down the first few
ideas that came to mind.  More than anything, I wanted to get reaction
to the success criteria and going forth with this checklist to delimit
4.1 to items testable across language systems.

Avi   

Lisa Seeman wrote:
> 
> Have you seen the list that we compiled for WCAG 2? That list was a lot more
> comprehensive it needs to be edited down it should be, but not thrown out
> without clear reasoning.
> 
> Also, we have been working long and hard to make many testable items on that
> list. (I think it was about  half was testable to some level)
> 
> I think we need to coordinate and review past threads on this to avoid going
> back to square one?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> UnBounded Access
> 
> Widen the World Web
> 
> http://www.UBaccess.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Avi Arditti
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:52 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: 4.1 reproposed
> 
> My action item: "repropose 4.1 based on communications today [Sept. 5].
> ask people to focus on success criteria instead of checkpoint text."
> I've read the 1.0 core techniques
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#comprehension), as Wendy
> suggested, and studied the latest internal draft of 2.0.
> 
> These success criteria remain a terrific struggle. I'm still not happy
> with them. Suggestions (of the collegial sort) gratefully accepted. I
> hope to come back with more ideas from the plain-language conference in
> Toronto at the end of the month.
> 
> To restate the obvious, 4.1 has got to be delimited to address the
> central weakness: testability. So I've started a checklist as an idea,
> and in a style that could apply across language systems.  (I've written
> them in a way suggested by a friend at the U.S. Department of
> Education.)  If we proceed with this checklist, I could add items from
> the long list that's been put together. Also, there's the techniques
> list which could contain language-specific ideas and references. One
> more thing: because of 3.1, I've focused on other-than-structural
> elements.  So here goes ...
> 
> Checkpoint 4.1 Strive to write clearly [I know, focus on the criteria
> first -- but any thoughts on this wording, the verb "strive" borrowed
> from the 1.0 core techniques?]
> 
> You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at the Minimum Level if:
> 1. Portions of new content (especially directions, commands and options)
> are written clearly to the extent those responsible consider
> appropriate.
> 
> You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at Level 2 if:
> 1.Portions of new content meet at least several items on the following
> checklist.
> 2.A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to
> this checkpoint at level 2.
> 
> You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at Level 3 if::
> 1.Significant portions of new content meet applicable elements of the
> checklist.
> 2. Or, significant portions of new content meet elements of an
> independently established set of guidelines for clear writing.
> 3. Remaining content is reviewed and changed as desired by those
> responsible.
> 4.A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to
> this checkpoint at level 3.
> 
> Note: This checkpoint deals with the strength of writing to convey
> information -- in other words, to help users understand. It is
> consistent with the aims of a global movement to promote clarity in the
> communications that affect people's lives.
> 
> Clear writing benefits everyone, but especially:
>     -- those with cognitive disablities
>     -- those whose ability to parse text is limited by screen readers or
> other assistive technology
>     -- those whose native language is different from the language of the
> text
> 
> Clear writing does not have to mean simple writing. It is writing that
> is appropriate for the purpose and the audience. The goal is not to
> limit creativity or the scope of content. The goal is to encourage a
> reduction in needless complexity.
> 
> How clear is clear enough? The answer will always vary by audience,
> subject and context.  So too, ideas and techniques to communicate in
> "plain language" vary from language to language. Ultimately, users may
> be the ones who, through their actions and choices in viewing sites,
> decide the answer.
> 
> Checklist:
> 
> 1. When content gives directions or commands, does the text make clear
> what the user must do?
> 2. When a term of address is used, it is clear when the user is being
> addressed?
> 3. Would the writing style reasonably be considered clear by the
> standards of the language and culture (public or professional) in which
> the content is written?
> 4. Overall, is the syntax appropriate for eliciting the desired action
> or response?
> 5. Overall, is the vocabulary appropriate for eliciting the desired
> action or response?
> 6. Would the verb forms generally be considered easy to understand for
> the intended purpose of the content?
> 7. Is a controlled language used?
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 09:47:47 GMT

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