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

Re: 4.1 latest version

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:04:10 +0100
Message-ID: <000f01c2c94a$c6bc7e80$93642a97@k7l2g9>
To: "Avi Arditti" <aardit@voa.gov>, "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Just a terminology point...

Avi Arditti:
> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if you review the content
> with items such as these in mind:
> 3) Cohesiveness of paragraphs (paragraphs that are limited to a single
> idea and a reasonable length are generally easier to understand)

As I precedently wrote, in my first mail I made a mistake: we should say
'coherence' of paragraphs, not cohesiveness. I explained it better in :

So I suggest:
3) Coherence of paragraphs (the sentences that form a paragraph should
refer to the same topic/argument, without not needed changes; Paragraphs
that refer to a well identified argument are generally esier to
understand than paragraphs that change often their reference). Or ,
perhaps better:
(consequential sentences should mantain a common reference; too much
changes of topic/reference of references between adjacent sentences make
the text more difficult to understand).

Sorry, I just think it's important to use 'coherence', according with
theories and research results in text-comprehension field.
In the same way, below:

> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if you review the content with
> such as these in mind:
> 3) Coherence of pronouns

It may be tricky to use coherence here, if we use it above. Should be
'cohesion (or cohesiveness) of text'. And it isn't only a pronoun
question. It involves:

- coherence (clearity of reference) of pronouns;
-  coherence (clearity of reference) of anaphoric expressions (*);
-  the correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs (i.e. furthermore,
and, but, not only, etc..) to explicitate the right relationship between
phrases or part of the discourse.

Thank you for your attention and thanks to Avi for his precious work: do
you think
it's useful I try to make some example in english?

Maurizio Boscarol

(*) with 'anaphoric expression' (hope it's correct in english, roots in
ancient greek..) I mean expressions that refers to something already
said in the text, but with potentially ambiguos form.
i.e.: ' ... what we said above..' (and above we said a lot... what,
'... all this suggest that...' (All this or just the last part of our
And so on.

This anaphoric expressions should be used in our texts (we can't repeat
a whole concept anytime
we refer to it), but should be used with the attention needed to make
the lexical reference non-ambiguos. This 'disambiguation' can be
just with lexical care, so we refer to 'cohesion', and not coherence,
that need to manipulate or change the actual content.
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 11:51:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:43 UTC