W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Lists in normative section

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:11:43 -0500
Message-ID: <3E28B7DF.A5C2E60@voa.gov>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
CC: gv@trace.wisc.edu

I will recast the items in the way Gregg suggests and post them to the list for
feedback. I will be interested in any comments on readability, but especially
those from non-native English speakers.

Avi

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> How about make them into topics rather than recommendations
>
> - sentence length and complexity
> - number of ideas in sentences (1 is best)
> - number of ideas in paragraphs (1 is best)
> - use of jargon and other words that may not be familiar to readers of site.
>
> Etc.
>
>
> Gregg
>
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Lee Roberts
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; 'Web Content Guidelines'
> Subject: RE: Lists in normative section
>
> I was just thinking if we might go with a generalization instead of
> specifics for the success criteria and then put the specifics in the
> normative.
>
> Example:
> Level 1:
> SC: Write clearly and simply.
> Normative:  1) One thought per sentence.
>                 2) One thought per paragraph.
>                 3) No double-negatives.
>
> We might be able to apply this concept and it still be testable.
>
> Just my two-cents.
>
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:50 AM
> To: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: Re: Lists in normative section
>
> A quick clarification to my previous message to correct a poorly written
> sentence: I think we should decide which of the two potential
> misinterpretations Gregg identified is worse, write the guidelines in
> such a way as to avoid this misinterpretation while still allowing the
> other, then do our best to militate against the latter misinterpretation
> so far as possible.
>
> Of course if someone contrives a proposal that avoids both
> misinterpretations/misapplications of the guidelines we should accept
> it. My opinion at present is that I would rather include the "items to
> be considered" in reviews directly under the review requirements
> themselves, in the success criteria, rather than in separate "additional
> ideas" sections. This doesn't change the substance of the review
> requirements: the ultimate test is still whether a review was conducted.
> Rather it simply inserts the list of desiderata directly into the text
> of the success criteria that establish the requirements for a review.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 21:13:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT