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

Re: 4.1 latest version

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:44:43 -0500
Message-ID: <3E39567B.F4C2A8A8@voa.gov>
To: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
CC: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>

First -- it looks like I will be about 45 minutes late for today's
meeting. I have to leave the office.

Secondly -- Maurizio raised some very good points that I had overlooked,
and I appreciate Lisa's suggestions (plus Lee's, about moving
"summaries" to level 2). 

So, upcoming shortly: a <latest> latest version of 4.1 to take into
account the suggestions thus far.

Avi

Lisa Seeman wrote:
> 
> This is interesting perspective.
> 
> I am going to try to suggest a way to merge this into our checkpoint,
> 
> 1, Cohesiveness
> Where we  state that one idea per paragraph is preferred,  we could
> recommend that at least all ideas/concepts in a paragraph are strongly
> related.
> Where we recommend  'Logic in the order and flow of information,"  we could
> recommend that the logic and flow of ideas is reveled to the user (so that
> when you switch from one topic to another , it is made clear - like a new
> sub heading.. (this is related to checkpoint 1.3 and 1.4 on structure. -I do
> not see the requirement of actually separating ideas into a structure)
> 
> these recommendations could be in accommodation explanatory text
> 
> 2, Coherence
> 
> I am not sure what you meant hear- is it the conjunctions like promotes are
> easy to resolve? For example when you say "He" - which he? The main subject
> of the paragraph or the last male to have been refereed to.
> for example:
> "this is a story about David...... David has a dog called Tag. He has big
> brown eyes."
> compare with
>  "this is a story about David..... David has a dog called Tag. Tag has big
> brown eyes."
> 
> This is called Semantic ambiguity. Each word is not ambiguous, but other
> knowledge sources are required to determine the meaning of a sentence. For
> example, if we already know that David has blue eyes, then we know how to
> resolve the sentence. However for a slow reader who may  forget minor
> details of  what he read yesterday, the ambiguity remains. ( from a machine
> perspective it is also hard to resolve .)
> 
> I think that this is a classic case of reviewing "Consequences of ambiguity
> or abstraction" .
> but it is a good discussion and certainly explanatory text  could make this
> clearer.
> 
> 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 Maurizio Boscarol
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:59 AM
> To: Avi Arditti; WCAG List
> Subject: Re: 4.1 latest version
> 
> Sorry for my bad english: I hope I can explain what I mean...
> 
> I remember my studies on text-comprehension and there are some critical
> issue on checkpoint 4.1.
> 
> The comprehensibility of a text rely on many factors. Some of them are
> implemented in some automated readability index you can find on most
> word processor. But you may notice that they are not really useful. Text
> comprehension depends on text purpose, audience ability, and, finally,
> on contextual information. What is 'Familiarity of terms and language
> structure
> '? It's very difficult to say in an objective manner.
> Even the 'Length and complexity of sentencesof a phrase' is a
> controversial question. In Italian language is considered bad writing to
> use only short sentences. Better alternate short, medium and long
> phrases and sentences as appropriated, but... when is it appropriated?
> 
> Some suggestions: text.comprehension are also influenced by two text
> properties: coherence and cohesion.
> 
> Coherence: the fact that two contiguos phrases refer to the same
> argument. A text is more difficult if the topic are changed often, or if
> the subject is not clear and unique in contiguos phrases.
> 
> (i.e.: "I wrote a mail. The man was climbing me over."
> 
> Not so understandable, uh? What man? How does it relate to the fact I
> wrote the mail?.. Lack of coherence.
> 
> Instead: "I wrote a long and articulated mail, trying to made it
> understandable."
> 
> The relation is clear. This is an extreme example, but I
> hope you see the point)
> 
> Coherence: the correct use of lexical connector: and, but, furthermore,
> then... And the correct pronouns used to refer to an object. It's a
> language issue, not a content one.
> 
> I realize that this suggestion are also difficult to express in
> checkpoint, but I think it's important to try to take advantage from
> some well consolidated research results, and so I ask for your opinion
> about
> them.
> 
> I don't know if they relate with accessibility of language, but in a
> certain way I feel they should.
> 
> Hope this may help.
> 
> Maurizio Boscarol
> http://www.usabile.it
> 
> >
> >  Familiarity of terms and language structure
> >  Length and complexity of sentences (shorter sentences, limited to
> one
> > idea, are generally easier to understand)
> >  Length and complexity of paragraphs (paragraphs limited to one idea
> > are generally easier to understand)
> >  Use of summaries to aid understanding.
> >  Accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
> >  Clarity of headings and linked text when read out of
> > context.
> >
> >
> > You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if you review the
> > content with items such as these in mind:
> >
> > 1) Use of sentence structures that increase understanding (such as
> > active voice in English and other languages)
> > 2) Length of noun phrases (strings of no more than three or four nouns
> > are easiest to understand)
> > 3) Complexity of verb tenses (simpler tenses are easier to understand)
> > 4) Transparency of verb phrases
> > 5) Familiarity of idioms or slang
> > 6) Consequences of ambiguity or abstraction
> > 7) Desirability of vertical lists in place of long paragraphs of
> > information
> > 8) Logic in the order and flow of information
> > 9) Thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions
> > 10) Consistency in the use of names and labels
> > 11) Clarity where the document:
> > - addresses users
> > - explains choices and options
> > - labels options to get more information
> > - instructs how to modify selections in critical functions (such as
> how
> > to delete an item from a shopping cart)
> > 12) Usage of:
> > - proper markup to highlight key information
> > - goal-action structure for menu prompts
> > - default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
> > - two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental
> >   selections for critical functions
> > - calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
> >
> > You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 3 if at least one of the following is
> > true:
> >
> > 1. New material is tested with potential users for ease of
> > accessibility
> > 2. A controlled language is used
> > 3. Support is given for conversion into symbolic languages
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 11:45:32 GMT

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