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

Re: 4.1 latest version

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:57:39 -0500
Message-ID: <3DDC2F83.8F804405@voa.gov>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
CC: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>

First, regrets for tomorrow -- I will be out of the office in the
afternoon.

Secondly, here is another version of 4.1, recast along the lines
suggested by Jason and Wendy et al. Lisa and I would like to get some
feedback to see if this form is more agreeable (or if we need to be more
explicit about making all the criteria testable.) 


You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if:

You reviewed the content and determined that the level of clarity is
appropriate, based on considerations such as these:
 Page titles are accurate and unique.
 The words and language structure are likely to be familiar to the
intended audience.
 Terms that should be familiar to the intended audience are favored
over terms that are less likely to be understood.
 Sentences are limited to a single idea.
 Paragraphs are limited to a single idea.
 Summaries are provided where these would aid understanding.
 Headings and linked text are unique and make sense when read out of
context.

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if:

You reviewed the content and determined that the level of clarity is
appropriate, based on considerations such as these:
 Are sentence structures that increase understanding (such as active
voice in English and other languages) favored over those that reduce
understanding?
 Are most noun phrases limited to no more than three nouns?
 Are verb phrases likely to be understood?
 Are verb tenses only as complex as required?
 Do uses of slang or idioms support the purpose of the content?
 Are instances of ambiguity intentional?
 Is the writing style concrete enough, or abstract enough, for the
intended purpose?
 Would long paragraphs be easier to understand if rewritten as vertical
lists? 
 Is the order of information logical?
 Are names and labels used consistently within a document?
 Are instructions or required actions explained step-by-step? 
 Do sentences that explain actions and conditions list the conditions
first?
 Is it clear when users are being addressed?
 Are choices and options clearly explained?
 Are options to get more information clearly labeled?
 Is key information highlighted with proper markup?
 Is goal-action structure used for menu prompts?
 Are defaults provided, and is it easy to re-establish them?
 Is a two-step "select and confirm" process used to reduce accidental
selections for critical functions?
 Are there clear instructions about how to modify selections in
critical functions (such as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)?
 Is calculation assistance provided to reduce the need to calculate?

You will have successfully met checkpoint 4.1 at level 3 if
1. New material is tested with potential users for ease of
accessibility, or
2. A controlled language is used, or
3. Support has been given for conversion into symbolic languages.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 19:58:15 GMT

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