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

RE: 4.1 with more edits

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:15:32 +0200
To: "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <014c01c2d05e$de9d01d0$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>


> 2) Length and complexity of sentences (guides to clear writing
emphasize
> shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
> that writers vary sentence lengths within a document)
> 3) Coherence of paragraphs (too much change in topic or references
> between adjacent sentences makes text more difficult to understand;
> )

I think that the above criteria have lost clarity. Will people know what to
do?

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: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:39 PM
To: Avi Arditti; WCAG List
Subject: Re: 4.1 with more edits



Avi:
> This incorporates suggestions that Maurizio posted to the list (thanks
> again, Maurizio!):

I'm happy you found it useful :)
I think you made a great work!

It's very important the introduction you made:

> This checkpoint lists ideas to help you review content for clarity.
Many
> of these ideas are promoted within the global movement for plain
> language. The items below are not presented as success criteria,
> however, nor as any attempt to impose a particular editorial style.
> Rather, they are elements to consider as you review writing. They
> reflect the idea that accessibility begins with understanding.

Good. Just two comments:


> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if you review the content
> with items such as these in mind:
>
> 1) Familiarity of terms and language structure
> 2) Length and complexity of sentences (guides to clear writing
emphasize
> shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
> that writers vary sentence lengths within a document)

This is to give rithm and good style to writing, as I know.

> 3) Coherence of paragraphs (too much change in topic or references
> between adjacent sentences makes text more difficult to understand;
> )

Should the lenght of paragraph be addressed by checkpoint 2, rather than
by the 'coherence' issue?
Something as:
(guides to clear writing emphasize
 shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
that writers vary sentence lengths within a document; anyway, paragraphs
that are excessively long also present a challenge)


(..)
> 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 languages where this form is best used to convey
> information)
> 2) Length of noun phrases (strings of no more than three or four nouns
> are easiest to understand)
> 3) Clarity of reference of pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these
> refer back to something already said in the text but with potential
> ambiguity [example?])
> 4) Correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs (such as "and," "but,"
> "furthermore," "not only") to make explicit the relationship between
> phrases or parts of the text

very good the distinction between 3 an 4: it's more clear! :)

Just to be sure to understand the wcag-wg method: shuld we provide in a
separate document some example for this checkpoint? I think the
scientist and the monkey example should be included!... ;-)


Maurizio Boscarol
http://www.usabile.it
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 18:40:43 GMT

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