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

RE: 4.1 latest version

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:09:20 -0600
To: "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "'Avi Arditti'" <aardit@voa.gov>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <002101c2caff$5ba2c3a0$046fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
Maurizio wrote:

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 easier 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).

 

 

Maurizio,

Thanks for your contributions -- and making sure we use terminology
correctly.

 

I vote for the first of your two suggestions.   The first does a much better
job of following 4.1 itself I think.   We have to be careful to keep our
items accurate, but if we start using too technical a language we fall into
the trap we are trying to speak about.    (e.g.  I'm not sure people will
understand what a "consequential sentence" is).  

 

Thanks again for stepping up.  Especially since you are having to
communicate in a foreign language yourself as you do this.   Nice work.

 

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 Maurizio Boscarol
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:04 AM
To: Avi Arditti; WCAG List
Subject: Re: 4.1 latest version

 

 

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 :

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0153.html

 

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

items

> 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

http://www.usabile.it

 

(*) 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,

exactly?);

'... all this suggest that...' (All this or just the last part of our

text?...)

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

accomplished

just with lexical care, so we refer to 'cohesion', and not coherence,

that need to manipulate or change the actual content.

 

 
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 16:09:26 GMT

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