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

RE: Lists in normative section

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:26:47 +0200
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <007201c2bf94$84389180$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

The further we go from definite requirements for the review, the less
seriously people will take them.
It is obvious but worth reminding everyone

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web


lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com>
www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/>
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 2:22 AM
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Lists in normative section



Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 >
 > Hi Lee, Jason
 >
 >
 > Jason, I agree that moving them to informative might lose them.
 > I think the phrasing you used though still sounds like a command or
 > recommendation.
 > 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.

Interesting. My only reservation about this is that some of the above
aren't sufficiently explicit as to  what should be preferred. Try this:

Sentence length and complexity (shorter and less complex sentences are
easier to understand)
[quoting Gregg]
 > - number of ideas in sentences (1 is best)
 > - number of ideas in paragraphs (1 is best)

Avoidance of jargon likely to be unfamiliar to the intended audience

These are less ambiguous but still can't be readily misconstrued as
imperatives.

Thoughts?
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 03:27:26 GMT

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